Abortion is a "Necessary Evil" Argument
Many pro-choicers and pro-lifers agree that abortion is regrettable, bad, or even wicked. But the abortion-choice advocate can maintain their pro-choice position as long as the alternative is somehow worse. This line of argument can be called the “Necessary Evil” argument. It’s often left unstated or implicit, and rarely stated as an independent formal argument. Nevertheless it’s a common assumption fueling much of the abortion debate, as many pro-choice advocates are self-aware enough to admit that abortion, itself, is an unfortunate outcome, not to be celebrated even if, they believe, it’s a good to be allowed to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
The Necessary Evil Argument goes something like this.
Premise 1:
Abortion-choice policy poses a dilemma where we must choose between a general-ban on elective abortion, or we do not.
Premise 2:
Whether abortion-choice is good or evil, the alternative (a general ban on elective abortion) is worse.
Conclusion:
Therefore abortion-choice policy is justified.
Strengths
1. It’s flexible:
There’s no set number to the many different “greater goods” one can call-upon in support of this argument.
2. Dilemmas:
It also admits the ugly reality of moral dilemmas. For anyone’s ethical system to be well-rounded and translate effectively into the real-world, it should account for dilemmas (possible or actual).
3. It’s candid:
The abortion debate can grind to a halt when either side refuses to admit what should seem plain to all parties. By candidly confessing that abortion is regrettable, ugly, perhaps even “evil” this can earn credibility by showing self-awareness and honesty about the harsh reality of abortion.
4. Utility:
This is a pretty useful all-purpose, supplemental argument, as it’s already implied in other arguments. For example, it wouldn’t matter very much if bodily autonomy trumps fetal life, if abortion were itself entirely good, devoid of any drawbacks, and entirely without negative consequence. Instead, the autonomy argument can seem plausible precisely because people tend to admit that abortion is regrettable, and feels wrong, but bodily autonomy – they claim – is a greater good justifying abortion-choice policy as a “necessary evil.”
5. Self-Defense:
Pregnancy complications can threaten a woman’s life if she were to carry the pregnancy to term. In those cases, abortion can be a life-saving procedure. Even if we grant that abortion is evil, when it can save the life of the mother, it becomes a “necessary evil”
Weaknesses
1. It’s counterintuitive:
To be a “necessary evil” abortion must serve a redeeming purpose greater than the harm/evil it causes. But, since human life is normally considered immeasurably valuable, that’s a tall order. Especially since abortion kills an innocent human being, often in torturous abusive ways, for trivial reasons (convenience, embarrassment), and at an alarming rate. When clearly stated, the “necessary evil” argument is intuitively implausible.
2. Crime Against Humanity:
Abortion-practice is a crime against humanity, given the scale, nature, and practice of abortion. It would be too problematic (i.e., a losing battle) to argue that Apartheid, or the Holocaust, or Sex Trafficking are “necessary evils” because of how they “benefit” some members of those societies – we can likewise suspend the “necessary evil” argument for abortion, on comparable grounds.
3. “Necessary Evils” Might not Exist:
As a point of clarification, there’s a good case that “necessary evils” don’t exist because either those sorts of dilemmas don’t exist, or if they do exist, one must do the greater good – and “evil” means are thereby redeemed as instrumental goods (such as a surgeon’s scalpel, or the hero’s sacrifice).
4. Unqualified Candidates and Humanitarian Problems:
For this argument to work, there must be some redeeming good somehow associated or identified with abortion. But, unless those candidates are morally equal or greater than the value of a human life that’s taken in abortion, then that moral calculus doesn’t add up. In this way, abortion-choice reasoning tends to devalue human life so it can be outweighed by these other “reasons.” Often moral calculus means denying the notion of “equal human rights,” or even denying intrinsic human rights altogether – as if “human rights” are not based in one’s humanity (intrinsically), but rather are extrinsic, superimposed on the child by the whim of a government, or the choice of one’s parents, or the conventions of the community. As such, abortion-choice logic is often fraught with anti-humanitarian assumptions, pitting libertine preferences over and above humanitarian protections.
5. Therapeutic Abortions are a Red herring:
Pro-choicers and Pro-lifers generally agree that therapeutic abortion should be allowed when it comes to saving the mother’s life. That was never the core contention in the abortion debate. Therapeutic abortion has been legal before Roe v. Wade, during the Roe v. Wade era, and (so far) is legal in every U.S. state after Roe v. Wade was overturned in the Dobb’s decision (2022). Therapeutic abortion was never at the heart of the abortion debate, that space is saved for elective abortion (A.K.A., abortion-on-demand). In that regard, the self-defense objection and life-saving “necessary evils” are a distraction, a red herring (fallacy). When we remember that the kind of abortion disputed here is over elective abortion (where the mother’s life isn’t clearly imperiled by her pregnancy), the “necessary evil” argument dissolves.
6. It’s Evil, but not Necessary:
In defending elective abortion, pro-choicers can offer many different reasons to justify abortion-choice policy. But, as a general rule, these “justifying” reasons do not measure up to the inestimable value of the child’s life. They don’t actually justify abortion. It may be evil, but it’s not necessary. This becomes clear when we refuse to dehumanize the fetal victims of abortion. What if we were talking about toddlers, for example? Which of the following reasons would justify killing a toddler: Personal convenience, job advancement, personal preference, keeping a feckless boyfriend around, maintaining physical appearance, avoiding financial hardship, appeasing disappointed parents? If these motivations would justify killing a toddler, and children in utero are likewise fully human then we cannot safely assume those reasons can justify killing a child-in-utero.
