The Abortion Quadrilemma
BK at The Christian Cadre discusses (as part of a larger post on abortion) the abortion quadrilemma as presented by Boston College philosopher Peter Kreeft. According to BK:
You begin with the question such as the following: “So, if we don’t know when life begins that makes it okay to kill something? Doesn’t that argue for not killing something until we’re sure?” Then you throw out an illustration to make the point cleearer. Picture a hunter who hears a rustling in the bush. The rustling could be an animal that he is licensed to hunt, and killing that animal would be perfectly legal and (setting aside the difficult moral issues that involve hunting of animals not for food) ethical. But what if the rustling in the bush is another hunter? It could be, but the hunter doesn’t know. Should he shoot before he’s sure it isn’t a human being? Obviously not. The law puts an obligation on us to not kill negligently.
The Quadrilemma is presented as four exhaustive options as to the status of the human fetus.
Option 1: The fetus is a human being and we know it for certain.
Option 2: The fetus is a human being and we do not know it for certain.
Option 3: The fetus is not a human being and we know it for certain.
Option 4: The fetus is not a human being and we do not know it for certain.
Option 1 would seem obvious to most that the fetus should not be killed. Options 2 and 4 are like the rustling in the bush and therefore abortion should be avoided. The only option which would allow for abortion is option 3. I’ve not heard an argument which shows that we can know for certain that the fetus is not a human being.