Youngin Chung

See story about the abortion lecture this past Tuesday.

BY MARTHA MARRAZZA

In print | Published March 26, 2009

Associate Professor Christopher Tollefsen from the University of South Carolina spoke to a crowd of about 35 students, seminarians and others on Monday night about his philosophical argument against abortion. Tollefsen presented a five-pronged argument in a question-and-answer format to explain his pro-life position.

Members of Swarthmore Students Supporting Life (SSSL) wanted to bring a speaker to campus, and they selected Tollefsen for his knowledge and approach to the topic of abortion. Student organizers Laura Wolk ’09 and Christopher Green ’09 agreed that bringing a speaker who could discuss the philosophy and ethics of abortion would be most relevant for the Swarthmore community. Besides teaching philosophy and specializing in practical ethics, Tollefsen is the co-author of “Embryo: A Defense of Human Life” with Robert George ’77.

“We had heard that the co-author of his book was a Swat alum, and we contacted both of them after reading some of their materials. We asked if they would be willing to come, and he [Tollefsen] agreed,” Green said. “We discussed it a bit, and what we were looking for was a philosophical argument on abortion. We decided that for Swarthmore, the philosophy behind the argument is what would be most interesting and appropriate for the community.”

Wolk said Tollefsen’s talk and the following question-and-answer session fostered productive and courteous dialogue. “I was really pleased with the kinds of questions that were asked, and I was pleased with the general atmosphere of respect and calm and thoughtful discussion,” she said. “I think that going with the philosophical approach was such a good idea. People are so used to hearing this argument couched in scientific or religious terms, and this really provided a forum that didn’t exclude anybody.”

Tollefsen began his talk by praising an institution like Swarthmore for hosting him. “It’s an important measure of institutional vitality to have talks like this, where some pleasant and good-spirited disagreement can be expected,” he said.

Before launching into his arguments, Tollefsen framed the discussion in philosophical terms and explained his reasons for doing so. “Philosophy works by way of reasoned argument, using the premises available for natural reason. Abortion is a controversial issue on which there are great stakes. People feel strongly about abortion and feelings run high,” Tollefsen said. “It’s important that a love of truth, a willingness to inquire freely, trumps other things when we want to talk about particularly vexing questions. We want to have love of truth guiding the considerations that we bring to table.”

Tollefsen structured his talk around five major questions, ranging from the essence of personhood to the role of the state in the abortion debate. He argued that life starts at the point of conception, and that the fetus is biologically continuous with the human organism that it becomes.

He also said that all living humans deserve fundamental moral respect and explained the consequences of that claim. “There are various forms of respect for various sorts of statuses or achievements. When we talk about fundamental moral respect, it’s the sort of moral respect that shouldn’t go hand and hand with status, but with what we are essentially,” Tollefsen said. “If you ask which humans deserve fundamental moral respect, the answer is all of them, in virtue of being a human being.”

After speaking for about 50 minutes, Tollefsen opened the discussion up to the audience. Ariel Horowitz ’10 posed the first few questions to Tollefsen, including one inquiry about how long Tollefsen thought women should be imprisoned for having an abortion. Tollefsen argued for phasing out abortion in a way that did not criminalize those involved. “I don’t think we should end abortion by making it a criminal offense, I think we should be legislating it out of existence in other ways,” he said. “We could make it virtually impossible to operate as a doctor. We could introduce not criminal but other types of penalties in a way that would make abortion not socially possible.”

Following an exchange about the value of human life, Jen Medeiros ’11 asked Tollefsen if there is a circumstance under which one can justify war.

“Human life is the basic good for human beings, without which we can’t have other aspects of our well-being. We can’t say that we won’t do anything that won’t have negative effects on human life. We have to specify our moral obligation,” he said. “My principal is no intentional killing. Only a defensive war is permissible. It’s reasonable and permissible to use force in responding to an attacker, but that doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to say ‘I’m going to kill this person.’”

Kristin Caspar ’09 said Tollefsen’s talk served an important purpose, noting that “Especially in liberal arts colleges, I think we need more conservative voices to challenge the beliefs that many of us hold.”

“I am pro-choice, but I am interested in hearing what the other side has to say to test my own bias, my own belief and my own knowledge,” Caspar said. “Because if you don’t do that, your ‘open-minded’ view becomes close-minded, and it defeats the purpose.”

« RETURN TO NEWS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »