TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................II
CHAPTER ONE
JANE ENGLISH’S IDEA OF ABORTION AND THE CONCEPT OF A PERSON
1.1. THE CONCEPT OF ABORTION..........................................................................................2
1.1.1. Direct Abortion........................................................................................................2
1.1.2. Indirect Abortion.....................................................................................................2
1.2. CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS.....................................................................................2
1.3. CRITERIA FOR PERSONHOOD..........................................................................................3
1.3.1. Biological Factors.....................................................................................................3
1.3.2. Psychological Factors..............................................................................................3
1.3.3. Rationality Factors..................................................................................................4
1.3.4. Social Factors...........................................................................................................4
1.3.5. Legal Factors............................................................................................................4
1.3.6. Insufficiency of Factors...........................................................................................4
1.4. WHAT IF A FOETUS IS A PERSON?..................................................................................5
1.4.1. The Self-Defence Model..........................................................................................5
1.4.2. Abortion and Infanticide.........................................................................................6
1.5. WHAT IF A FOETUS IS NOT A PERSON?..........................................................................6
1.5.1. Treatment of Animals..............................................................................................6
1.5.2. Psychological facts and coherence of attitudes.....................................................7
1.5.3. Bodily continuity......................................................................................................7
1.6. ENGLISH’S STAND ON ABORTION...................................................................................7

CHAPTER TWO
AN EVALUATION OF ENGLISH’S NOTION ON ABORTION AND THE CONCEPT
OF A PERSON
2.1. THE MEANING OF THE TERM “PERSON”........................................................................8
2.2. THE FOETUS IS A PERSON FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION...............................9
2.2.1. Human Life as a Continuum..................................................................................9
2.2.2. The Foetus’ Right to Life........................................................................................9
2.2.3. Dependence as a Human Criterion......................................................................10

i
 2.2.4. Biblical Arguments................................................................................................10
2.3. VARIOUS FACETS OF ABORTION...................................................................................11
2.3.1. Abortion as an act of murder...............................................................................11
2.3.2. Abortion as a threat to the family and the state.................................................11
2.3.3. Abortion as an act against the common good.....................................................12
2.3.4. Abortion as a violation of natural law.................................................................12
2.4. EXTRAORDINARY CASES...............................................................................................12
2.4.1. When the foetus threatens the mother’s life........................................................12
2.4.2. Pregnancies resulting from rape and incest........................................................13
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................14
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................15

ii
 INTRODUCTION

Over the years, there have been multiple arguments on abortion, with some advocating

for the fact that abortion should be morally permissible and some arguing against it. Many

people have brought up different arguments from different backgrounds – religious, moral,

scientific, social, pragmatic and many others, each trying to defend their standpoint. This

dissension seems to have left nobody indifferent to the issue of abortion, because even

philosophers such as Judith Jarvis Thomson and Mary Ann Warren have argued from the pro-

choice point of view, while philosophers such as John Noonan hold the pro-life point of view.

Jane English, in her landmark article Abortion and the Concept of a Person, seems to

have taken the moderate position between the two parties. She questions the concept of

personhood assumed by Warren, assumes both positions for the sake of argument and comes to

conclusions supporting the U.S. Supreme Court Decision Roe vs. Wade (1973). She argues that

the concept of personhood is not sharp enough and decisive to have an impact on the solution to

this controversy.

The aim of this work is to expose and make an evaluation of Jane English’s notion of

abortion and the concept of a person. In order to fulfil our purpose, this work will be divided into

two chapters. Chapter one will be an exposition of the idea of Jane English on abortion and the

concept of a person, while chapter two will be a critique of her own concepts. The study will be

carried out through research with sources found in the seminary library. A conclusion and a

bibliography will bring this work to a close.

1
 CHAPTER ONE

JANE ENGLISH’S IDEA OF ABORTION AND THE CONCEPT OF A PERSON

1.1. THE CONCEPT OF ABORTION

Generally speaking, the term abortion comes from the Latin word abortio which refers to

the destruction of the life of an unborn baby (a foetus) in the womb of the mother. In a more

precise sense, it is defined as “the termination of pregnancy before independent viability of the

foetus is obtained.”1 Abortion is different from stillbirth, which is the expulsion of a dead foetus

later in the gestation period (pregnancy), and premature birth, which is the birth of a living infant

before it is due. Abortion could be voluntary, referred to as induced abortion, or involuntary, also

known as miscarriage (pregnancy interrupted by causes beyond the control of the free will, such

as an accident), which, strictly speaking, is not even considered to be abortion. Induced abortion

could either be direct or indirect.

1.1.1. Direct Abortion

Abortion is considered to be direct when the ejection of the foetus is intended as the aim

of an action, or as a means to achieve this aim. A good example would be an abortion carried out

in order to save the reputation of an unwed mother.

1.1.2. Indirect Abortion

Indirect abortion occurs when the death of the foetus is only permitted as a concomitant

effect of a directly willed end, for example, the death of a foetus caused by the removal of the

cancerous uterus of a pregnant mother.

1.2. CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS

Abortion, like every other subject, has had people who advocate for and against it, with

1
R. LEVI, “Abortion,” in Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 1, 42.
2
each of these parties providing arguments to support their stance. Conservatives are those who

maintain that a human life begins at conception, and therefore abortion must be wrong because it

is murder.2 Liberals, on the other hand, argue that abortion is justifiable, since according to them,

a foetus does not become a person until birth, and so a woman may do whatever she pleases in

and to her own body. Deciding on the exact time between ovulation and adulthood when a foetus

becomes a person has always been a bone of contention between conservatives and liberals,

because conservatives draw the line at conception, while liberals draw the line at birth.3

1.3. CRITERIA FOR PERSONHOOD

The myriad factions which have partaken in the abortion argument over the years have

proposed various criteria for determining what is and what is not a person. Foes of abortion

propose sufficient conditions for personhood which foetuses satisfy, while friends of abortion

counter with necessary conditions for personhood which foetuses lack. 4 However, English does

not opine that the concept of a person can be captured in a straitjacket of necessary and/or

sufficient conditions, but that the “person” is a cluster of features, 5 and she divides the traits

typifying the person into five sets of factors.

1.3.1. Biological Factors

English begins by listing certain biological factors such as: descended from humans,

having a certain genetic makeup, having a head, hands, arms, eyes, capable of locomotion,

breathing, eating and sleeping.6

1.3.2. Psychological Factors

She also enumerates some psychological factors: sentience, perception, having a concept

2
J. ENGLISH, “Abortion and the Concept of a Person”, in D. BONEVAC (ed), Today’s Moral Issues: Classic and
Contemporary Perspectives, McGraw – Hill Companies Inc., New York 2006, 364.
3
Cfr. Ibid.
4
Ibid., 364-365.
5
Cfr. Ibid., 365.
6
Ibid.
3
of self and of one’s own interests and desires, the ability to use tools, the ability to use language

or symbol systems, the ability to joke, to be angry and to doubt.7

1.3.3. Rationality Factors

She includes as well factors which she refers to as rationality factors: the ability to reason

and draw conclusions, the ability to generalize and to learn from past experience, and the ability

to sacrifice present interests for greater gains in the future.8

1.3.4. Social Factors

The ability to work in groups and respond to peer pressures, the ability to recognize and

consider as valuable the interests of others, seeing oneself as one among “other minds”, the

ability to sympathize, encourage and love, and the ability to work with others for mutual

advantage9 are the factors English refers to as social factors.

1.3.5. Legal Factors

For legal factors, she lists the following: being subject to the law and protected by it,

having the ability to sue and enter contracts, being counted in the census, having a name and

citizenship, and the ability to own property and inherit.10

1.3.6. Insufficiency of Factors

Jane English admits that although the aforementioned factors are criteria which determine

personhood, it is not necessary for all of them to be strictly fulfilled for one to be termed a

person. As a result of this, the foetus, according to her, lies in “the penumbra region where the

concept of a person is not so simple.”11 Thus, at some point the foetus is not a person, and then at

some point it is. English, however, believes that in both cases abortion is still justifiable to some

extent, as we shall see subsequently.

7
J. ENGLISH, “Abortion and the Concept of a Person”, in D. BONEVAC (ed), Today’s Moral Issues: Classic and
Contemporary Perspectives, 365.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
4
1.4. WHAT IF A FOETUS IS A PERSON?

Conservatives have always held that abortion is wrong, since it is the killing of a person –

an innocent person. Judith Jarvis Thomson points out, in an article of hers titled A Defence of

Abortion, that “some additional information is needed at this point in the conservative argument

to bridge the gap between the premise that a foetus is an innocent person and the conclusion that

killing it always wrong, and to successfully arrive at such a conclusion, we would need the

additional premise that killing an innocent person is always wrong.” 12 Nevertheless, English

makes us understand that killing an innocent person is sometimes permissible, and to better

elucidate this, she uses the example of self-defence, which she refers to as the “Self-Defence

Model”.

1.4.1. The Self-Defence Model

Murder, which is the killing of an innocent person, is permissible in cases of self-defence,

given that the attacker poses a threat to the life of the one he attacks. The killing of the attacker is

justifiable even if the person is clearly innocent – if the person is a victim of severe mental

derangement, for instance. However, the severity of the injury one may inflict in self-defence

depends on the severity of the injury to be avoided. One has the right to kill an attacker in self-

defence if killing him is the only way to protect one’s life or to save oneself from serious injury.

Shooting an attacker merely to avoid having one’s clothes torn is unnecessary when the simple

expedient of running away could do as much good. Self-defence is for the purpose of avoiding

harms and not equalising harms.13 This applies in the same way, according to English, in some

cases of pregnancy, where the foetus, although innocent, poses a threat to the pregnant woman’s

well-being, life prospects or health, either mental or physical. If the pregnancy poses a slight

12
J. ENGLISH, “Abortion and the Concept of a Person”, in D. BONEVAC (ed), Today’s Moral Issues: Classic and
Contemporary Perspectives, 366.
13
Cfr. Ibid.
5
threat to her interests, then self-defence cannot justify abortion in this case. If it poses a great

threat, then she may free herself from trouble by killing the foetus.14

1.4.2. Abortion and Infanticide

Many have argued that the only way to justify abortion without justifying infanticide is to

find some characteristic of personhood acquired at birth. According to English, abortion can be

justified without necessarily justifying infanticide because before birth, the foetus is completely

dependent biologically on the mother and cannot live without her, unlike after birth. If after birth

the woman’s sanity or life prospects are in any way threatened, she could escape all of it by the

simple expedient of running away. Birth, according to English, is the crucial point not because of

any characteristic the foetus gains, but because after birth the woman can defend herself by a

means less drastic than killing the infant.15

1.5. WHAT IF A FOETUS IS NOT A PERSON?

On the other hand, can it be conveniently stated that abortion would always be morally

permissible if the foetus were not a person? A few points will be put forth to show why English

believes that this statement cannot be held as true.

1.5.1. Treatment of Animals

Non-persons such as animals, according to English, also get some consideration in our

moral code. Although they do not have the same rights as persons have, this does not mean we

can treat them in any way we please. It is wrong, for example, to torture dogs for fun or to kill

birds for no reason at all. The fact that they are an animal species, just like us, would mean that

they ought to be given a certain degree of respect.16

1.5.2. Psychological facts and coherence of attitudes

14
Cfr. J. ENGLISH, “Abortion and the Concept of a Person”, in D. BONEVAC (ed), Today’s Moral Issues: Classic and
Contemporary Perspectives, 366.
15
Cfr. Ibid., 367.
16
Cfr. Ibid., 368.
6
 English believes that anti-abortion forces give their strongest arguments when they point

to the similarities between a foetus and a baby, and thus evoke our emotional attachment to and

sympathy for the foetus. A foetus one week before birth is so much like a new-born baby in our

psychological space that we cannot, at the same time, allow any careless or cavalier treatment of

the former while expecting full sympathy and nurturative support for the latter.17

1.5.3. Bodily continuity

Bodies play a remarkably central role in our attitudes towards persons, because even after

death, for example, when it is crystal clear that the body is no longer a person, we still observe

elaborate customs of respect for the human body. It is therefore appropriate that we show respect

to a human foetus since the body is continuous with the body of a person.18

1.6. ENGLISH’S STAND ON ABORTION

Having put forth all of the above arguments, English draws her conclusion concerning

her stand on abortion. In the first place, she states that the application of the concept of a person

as seen in this work will not suffice to settle the conflict between friends and foes of abortion,

since the biological development of a human being is gradual. Secondly, she states that whether

a foetus is a person or not, abortion is justifiable early in pregnancy to avoid modest harms and

seldom justifiable late in pregnancy except to avoid significant injury or death.19

17
Cfr. J. ENGLISH, “Abortion and the Concept of a Person”, in D. BONEVAC (ed), Today’s Moral Issues: Classic and
Contemporary Perspectives, 368.
18
Cfr. Ibid., 369.
19
Cfr. Ibid.
7
 CHAPTER TWO

AN EVALUATION OF ENGLISH’S NOTION ON ABORTION AND THE CONCEPT

OF A PERSON

In the previous chapter, Jane English’s thoughts concerning abortion and the concept of a

person were adequately examined. She held that the foetus might be and might not be a person,

and for each of these conditions she gave arguments to support her opinion that abortion could be

justifiable in both cases. This chapter will be a critique of her thoughts, because the concept of a

person will be re-examined and this re-examination will show that English’s viewpoint on

abortion is incoherent. Various facets of abortion shall also be examined and the moral

significance of abortion shall as well be evaluated. An adequate conclusion shall then be drawn

on whether or not abortion is permissible in any circumstance whatsoever.

2.1. THE MEANING OF THE TERM “PERSON”

Etymologically, the term “person” comes from the Latin word persona, a translation of

the Greek prosopon, both words signifying the mask worn by actors on stage.20 The word marks

the line of demarcation between pagan and Christian culture, because until the advent of

Christianity, not a single word existed which could sufficiently express the concept of person,

given that the pagan culture debased the dignity of the human person and made his absolute

value depend principally on class, rank, wealth and race. 21 It was the Christian culture that

brought to light, affirmed and diffused the meaning of the concept person as a unique and

unrepeatable individual, having absolute value.22 This was because it stressed the substantial

equality in dignity of every member of the human species.

20
Cfr. W. REESE, “Person,” in Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, Vol. 1, 424.
21
Cfr. B. MONDIN, Philosophical Anthropology, Theological Publications India, Bangalore 1985, 243.
22
Cfr. Ibid., 244.
8
 2.2. THE FOETUS IS A PERSON FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION

With the rapid evolution of science and modern technology, the evidence is now clearer

than ever that human life begins at the very moment of conception. When the male sperm and the

female ovum unite, a new, tiny, human being, whose genetic code contains all the physical

characteristics of an individual being (even the baby’s sex), emerges. From that moment till

death, no new genetic information is added. Scientific experts round the world have themselves

testified that the fact that human life begins at conception is “no longer a matter of taste or

opinion – it is plain experimental evidence”.23 Human foetuses, therefore, are unmistakeably and

fully human.

2.2.1. Human Life as a Continuum

The life of a human person is a single continuum having different stages, and being a

child in the womb is the first of these stages. Liberals do not seem to understand that

development does not turn a non-person into a person: a person is there already, the same person,

all through his development.24 The child in the womb is the same person as the born child he will

become, as well as the toddler of three, the teenager, and the adult he will later become. Since the

foetus has never developed into anything apart from the human person, it would be illogical to

hold that at the moment of conception the foetus is not a human person.

2.2.2. The Foetus’ Right to Life

A right is a special advantage which someone gains because of his or her particular

status. According to Austin Fagothey, a right is “a moral power over what is one’s own, or more

expressly, moral power to do, hold or exact something.” 25 The right to life is possessed in the

very essence of man and it does not depend on whether one is an adult and the other is not. The

mother who commits an abortion goes against moral norms since everybody is obliged to uphold
23
N. GEISLER, Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options, Baker Publishing Group, Illinois 2010, 149.
24
Cfr. S. SCHWARZ, The Moral Question of Abortion, Loyola University Press, Chicago 1900, 88.
25
A. FAGOTHEY, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practices, The C.V. Mosby Company, St. Louis 1953,
241.
9
life, and since all human beings have moral power, the mother cannot claim superiority over the

right of the unborn child. English’s argument, therefore, will have no grounds if we agree with

Fagothey that right is a moral power to do that which is in accordance to moral norms and

principles.

2.2.3. Dependence as a Human Criterion

It is a fact that the unborn child is smaller than the new-born child, but this difference in

size is of no moral significance. The new born child is not any more a person, or more precious,

than the unborn child; a new-born baby is just as precious as the unborn child. The child in the

womb is nothing but a smaller child. Austin Fagothey says that the child depends on its parents

as well as a wife also depends on her husband, and the sick and the aged on those who care for

them; they have life but need others to support and protect them. 26 The fact that the child depends

on the mother for survival is not a guarantee for the mother to abort the child, since everybody is

dependent on someone else for survival in one way or another.

2.2.4. Biblical Arguments

Just as there are scientific and pragmatic arguments that the foetus is a human person,

there are also biblical arguments to support this view. In many places in Scripture, unborn

babies are called “children”, the same word which is used to refer to infants and children (cf.

Ex. 21:22, Lk. 1:41, 44; 2:12, 16). Christ, the God-man, was human from the moment he was

conceived in Mary’s womb (cf. Matt. 1:20-21, Lk. 1:31). Also, the image of God at creation

includes ‘male and female’ (cf. Gen. 1:27), but it is a scientific fact that the sex (‘maleness’ or

‘femaleness’) of a person is determined at the moment of conception. Even personal pronouns

are used to refer to unborn children (cf. Jer. 1:5, Matt. 1:20-21) in the same way that they are

used to refer to any other person.

26
A. FAGOTHEY, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practices, 253.
10
 2.3. VARIOUS FACETS OF ABORTION

Over the years, and according to the conservatives who hold that abortion is morally

wrong, abortion itself has been examined in various ways and many facets have been brought to

light. Some of them shall be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.

2.3.1. Abortion as an act of murder

Fagothey defines murder as the intentional killing of an innocent person. 27 Both

intentional killing and the killing of an innocent person apply to abortion. John Paul II explains,

in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, that the widespread use of ambiguous terminology,

such as “interruption of pregnancy”, tends to hide abortion’s nature and to mitigate its

seriousness in public opinion. This phenomenon might as well be as a result of a certain

uneasiness of conscience, but it does not change the reality of procured abortion, which is the

deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial

phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.28 The moral gravity of procured

abortion is apparent in all its truths if we recognise that we are dealing with murder, because the

one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. If killing him or her at a later stage

is murder, then it is murder as well at an earlier stage.

2.3.2. Abortion as a threat to the family and the state

The family is the basic social unit which makes up and generates the state, and without

marriage or the family there would be no state. If we agree with English that it is permissible for

a woman to abort, then marriage is left at the level of mere sexual gratification and there will be

neither a family or state, since the foetus aborted today would have formed the family of

tomorrow if it had remained alive. As a result, abortion destroys not only the family but the

state.29

27
Ibid., 239.
28
Cfr. JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), n. 58.
29
Cfr. D. COMPOSTA, Moral Philosophy and Social Ethics, Urbaniana University Press, Rome 1988, 132.
11
 2.3.3. Abortion as an act against the common good

An act is said to be good when its object, that is, its defining purpose, is in accord with

practical reasonableness, such as making a charitable gesture. It is certain, therefore, that any act

which is against reason is not in line with the human good. From the foregoing statement, it

becomes evident that pregnancy ( and consequently childbirth) is the “summum bonum” of

every family, and abortion is against this “summum bonum”, together with all those who advocate

for it.

2.3.4. Abortion as a violation of natural law

To advocate for abortion does not only violate the natural law which is preservation of

life, but it goes as well against the fundamental right of women to bear children. Natural law

demands that sexual intercourse should be geared towards love and conception as a vital

aspect, and this has been maintained from antiquity. Paul VI also states that human life is to be

preserved and upheld and that every conjugal act has to be open to the transmission of life.30

From this, it is evident that any form of rejection of the baby in the womb is killing, hence a

violation of natural law.

2.4. EXTRAORDINARY CASES

Adhering to the fact that a fertilised ovum is fully human also leads to a few difficulties, a

few of which shall be examined below.

2.4.1. When the foetus threatens the mother’s life

When it is necessary, such as in ectopic (tubal) pregnancies, it is morally justified to

grasp

every medical precaution to save the mother’s life. This is not abortion as such, for two main

reasons. Firstly, the intention is not to kill the baby but to save the life of the mother. Also, it is a

30
PAUL VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae (25 July 1968), n. 11.
12
life-for-life issue, not an abortion-on-demand issue, and so it cannot qualify as abortion since it is

not an operation aimed at killing the embryo.31

2.4.2. Pregnancies resulting from rape and incest

In pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, abortion is still considered to be murder as

long as the foetus does not pose a threat to the mother’s life. The foetus is still an offspring of the

mother and still has the right to life and protection from her, like every other human being has.

Although it is argued that the mother of the foetus can abort the child due to the traumatic

experience she has undergone, it is also a fact that women who abort these foetuses generally end

up living with “double trauma” after abortion. Hence, abortion in such cases is not morally

permissible.

31
Cfr. N. GEISLER, Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options, 153.
13
 CONCLUSION

The myriad factions which have partaken in the abortion argument down the years seem

to be increasing in number as days go by, because different viewpoints are brought by different

people every day. However, on the basis of morality, the noblest viewpoint has been examined

and brought to light in this work, especially in the second chapter.

It is sickening to think that many pro-choicers rationalise about abortion and seem to find

nothing wrong with it. English’s argument has been that since the biological development of a

human being is gradual, it is difficult to determine at what exact instant a foetus becomes a

person. Also, she holds that whether a foetus is a person or not, abortion is justifiable early in

pregnancy to avoid modest harms and seldom justifiable late in pregnancy except to avoid

significant injury or death.

The problem of abortion is much broader than English’s view which has been portrayed

in this work. Today’s society seems to have completely lost the sense of sin as many countries

have legalised the practice of abortion. Our study in this work has not exhausted all there is to be

said about abortion. A lot more needs to be done in convincing the world that abortion is the real

murder of an innocent human person at the early stages of its development.

14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MAIN SOURCE

ENGLISH Jane, “Abortion and the Concept of a Person”, in D.

BONEVAC (ed), Today’s Moral Issues: Classic and
Contemporary Perspectives, McGraw – Hill
Companies Inc., 2006.

SECONDARY SOURCES

COMPOSTA Dario, Moral Philosophy and Social Ethics, Urbaniana

University Press, Rome 1988.

FAGOTHEY Austin, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practices,

The C.V. Mosby Company, St. Louis 1953.

GEISLER Norman, Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and

Options, Baker Publishing Group, Illinois 2010.

MONDIN Battista, Philosophical Anthropology, Theological

Publications India, Bangalore 1985.

SCHWARZ Stephen, The Moral Question of Abortion, Loyola University

Press, Chicago 1900.

ECCLESIASTICAL DOCUMENTS

JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March

1995).

PAUL VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae (25 July 1968).

ENCYCLOPAEDIAS AND DICTIONARIES

LEVI Robert, “Abortion”, in Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 1,

Macmillan, London 1992.

REESE William, “Person”, in Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion,

Vol. 1, Humanities Press, New Jersey 1980.

15