There are many different arguments against abortion, but most of them have a similar structure.

Generally, they start with the nature of the unborn. The claim is made that the unborn is a particular kind of thing (e.g. a living human being, or a living human being that can feel pain, or a living human being that could survive outside its mother).

Pro-life arguments then assert that things of this kind have a right to life. It is stated that it’s morally wrong to kill a living human being, or a living human being that can feel pain, or whatever kind of thing the unborn has just been claimed to be. An intermediate conclusion can now be drawn: The unborn has a right to life.

Abortion, of course, kills the unborn, so it’s a small step from there to another intermediate conclusion: Abortion involves the violation of a right to life.

That isn’t quite it though. To be complete, pro-life arguments have to weigh the unborn’s right to life against whatever women’s rights might be violated by prohibiting abortion (e.g. the right to decide what happens to one’s body, or the right to reproductive freedom), and assert that the right to life takes precedence.

If you have to choose between killing someone (on the one hand) and denying someone reproductive freedom (on the other), then the right thing to do is to deny someone reproductive freedom (or so goes the argument).

Only then can the conclusion be drawn: Abortion is immoral.

So a rough summary of the pro-life argument could go like this:

(R) The unborn is a being of type x.
(R) Everything that’s a being of type x has a right to life.
Therefore: (IC) The unborn has a right to life.
(R) Abortion kills the unborn.
Therefore: (IC) Abortion violates a right to life.
(R) The right to life takes precedence over any rights violated by prohibiting abortion.
Therefore: (C) Abortion is immoral.

There was a documentary about religious fundamentalists on Channel 4 last night. It included two clips of pro-choice protesters chanting. In both cases, the chants completely misrepresented the pro-life position.

I know that expecting tight logic from a demo chant is probably a bit optimistic, but it irritated me anyway.

The first chant, coming from pro-choice campaigners trying to disrupt the pro-life March for Life rally, was “March for life, that’s a lie. You don’t care if women die.”

This is, presumably, a condensed version of the argument that if abortion is prohibited then some women will go to illegal abortion providers, putting their safety at risk (and that abortion should therefore be legal so that we can make it as safe as possible).

Accusing those who believe that abortion should be prohibited of not caring if women die seems a bit strong, though.

A pro-life campaigner may well care if women die, but think that protecting the lives of unborn children is more important than protecting the lives of mothers trying to kill them. I strongly suspect that this point of view is far more common than the view that it doesn’t matter at all if a woman having a back-street abortion dies, that the chant misrepresents pro-lifers, that it’s attacking a straw man.

The second chant, “Women’s rights are human rights”, seems just as unfair to the pro-life point of view.

The accusation here is that the pro-life position doesn’t take women’s rights seriously, that it treats them as less than human.

The pro-choice argument doesn’t work by denying women rights, though; it works by attributing to the unborn a right even more fundamental than those women’s rights that are broken by prohibiting abortion. Again, then, the chant attacks a straw man.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the pro-life argument is sound, just that these chants are no good as responses to it.

So what should pro-choice protesters chant?

“It’s just a bunch of cells” (to the tune of the football chant “You don’t know what you’re doing”, presumably) would be to the point, denying that the unborn is the kind of thing that has rights that we ought to protect.

“Women’s rights come first” would also work, challenging the idea that it’s more important to protect the unborn’s life than it is to protect its mother’s freedom.

I’m sure that a pro-choice protester (who would have much more motivation to do this than me) could come up with something catchy that makes these kinds of point.

Logical chants are clearly possible; are they really too much to ask for?

A recent poll has shown that the public continue to support women having the right to choose to have an abortion. The poll was commissioned by Bpas, a charity that provides around 50,000 abortions each year, and conducted by Mori. 63% of those asked agreed with the statement, “If a woman wants an abortion, she should not have to continue with her pregnancy.” Bpas have reportedly cited the data collected as a reason to liberalise current abortion legislation.

There is always a concern with surveys commissioned by a group with a clear vested interest, such as this one: the way that the questions were framed might have distorted the results. Interestingly, some of the questions in this poll were varied, making it possible to see this phenomenon in action.

Half of those polled were asked about their attitude towards the current law which allows abortion up to 24 weeks with the consent of two doctors. The other half were asked about their attitude towards the current law which allows abortion up to 24 weeks but were not told about the requirement for doctors’ consent. 54% of the first group agreed with the current law, while 28% opposed it; 46% of the second group agreed with the current law, while 38% opposed it. This serves to illustrate how much difference the way that questions are framed can make.

The conclusion drawn from the data by Bpas is also of interest. If their argument were that the public endorsement of abortion implies that there is nothing wrong with it (call this “the moral argument”), then it would clearly commit the appeal to popularity fallacy. The moral status of an action and public opinion towards it are two different matters. If the majority of the population backed racial discrimination, for example, then that wouldn’t make it right.

If, on the other hand, Bpas’s argument is not to do with the moral status of abortion but with the legal status of abortion (call this “the legal argument”), then they may be on more solid ground. The argument, “The public backs abortion on demand, therefore the government should permit abortion on demand”, need not be understood as drawing a conclusion about whether abortion is morally right or wrong. Instead, it could be understood as drawing a conclusion about how the government should legislate.

Why is the second argument better than the first? Because it rests on a more plausible assumption.

The moral argument, in inferring the conclusion “There is nothing wrong with abortion” from the reason “Most people believe that there is nothing wrong with abortion”, makes an assumption: “Whatever most people believe is the case.” This assumption, however, is often false; often the majority opinion is incorrect. This is why appeals to popularity are fallacious.

The assumption made by the legal argument is slightly different. The legal argument infers the conclusion “The government should permit abortion on demand” from the reason “Most people want the government to permit abortion on demand.” The assumption made by this argument is that the government ought to do whatever most people want the government to do. This assumption is not obviously true–we can imagine situations in which following public opinion would lead to catastrophe–but it is more defensible than that made by the moral argument. In a democratic system, where the government is elected to rule for the people, the legal argument might just fly.

One thing that this shows is the importance of clarifying precisely what an argument is before it can be assessed. Several different conclusions are attributed to Bpas in several different places: e.g. that abortion should be available on demand, that the current legislation should be relaxed, and that it is time for the government to review abortion legislation. The stronger the conclusion they draw from the data, the weaker their argument gets.

Starbucks has received a lot of criticism from the ethical lobby. Recently, though, it has tried to clean up its image, introducing and promoting fair trade coffee. However, in contrast to its superficial enthusiasm for fair trade are the figures. In 2005, 3.7% of its coffee sales were of fair trade coffee, with another 24.6% being of coffee from Starbucks’ own “coffee and farmer equity” scheme. That means that the vast majority of its coffee is still from non-fair trade sources.

Starbucks has an answer to these criticisms: fair trade certifiers only work with small co-operatives, and so can only supply a small section of the market. Fair trade coffee is necessarily a niche product that can’t be rolled out to the whole market. Assuming that this is true, does it excuse them for paying low prices to coffee producers?

The argument seems to be this: It’s impossible for Starbucks to source more of its coffee from fair trade schemes, therefore they can’t be blamed for paying low prices to coffee growers. We shouldn’t blame Starbucks for paying unfair prices to coffee-growers because there simply aren’t enough fair-trade schemes to supply the market. They have no choice but to buy from uncertified sources, paying under the odds as they do so.

This is a case of the restricting the options fallacy. Starbucks do not have to choose between just two options: buying from a fair trade co-operative and paying an unfair price. There is a third option available: they could pay a fair price to all of their suppliers, whether they are members of fair trade co-operatives or not. Of course, this wouldn’t entitle them to display the fair-trade symbol on their products, but that isn’t the point; the point is that they would be acting ethically in dealing with their suppliers.

For Starbucks’ defence to work, it would have to be the case that the only way of treating coffee farmers fairly is by using a fair-trade scheme. This conjures up images of Starbucks desperately trying to haggle the price of coffee beans upwards, but their coffee bean suppliers refusing to budge, insisting on receiving an unfair deal!

If this is the best defence that Starbucks has to offer, then it seems that the ethical criticism sticks.