Ultrasound Viewers’ Attribution of Moral Status to Fetal Humans: A Case for Presumptive Rationality
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
As several studies, along with a book and movie depicting the true story of a former clinic director, have recently brought to the public’s attention, fetal ultrasound images dramatically impact some viewers’ normative judgments: a small but non-negligible proportion of viewers attribute increased moral status to fetal humans and even form the belief that abortion is impermissible. I consider three types of psychological explanation for a viewer’s shift in beliefs: (1) increased bonding or empathy, (2) various forms of cognitive bias, and (3) type of cognitive processing involved. I consider the normative implications of each explanation, arguing that in each case the viewer’s judgment is presumptively rational.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Amit E., Greene J. (2012), “You See, the Ends Don’t Justify the Means: Visual Imagery and Moral Judgment,” Psychological Science 23 (8): 861–868.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Aristotle (1999), Nicomachean Ethics, trans. T. Irwin, Hackett, Indianapolis.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Giebel H. (2020), Ethical Excellence: Philosophers, Psychologists, and Real-Life Exemplars Show Us How to Achieve It, CUA Press, Washington (DC).
View in Google Scholar
Batson C.D. (2009), “These Things Called Empathy: Eight Related but Distinct Phenomena,” [in:] Social Neuroscience. The Social Neuroscience of Empathy, J. Decety, W. Ickes (eds.), The MIT Press, Cambridge (MA): 3–15.
View in Google Scholar
Batson C.D. (2011), Altruism in Humans, Oxford University Press, New York.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Black R.B. (1992), “Seeing the Baby: The Impact of Ultrasound Technology,” Journal of Genetic Counseling 1 (1): 45–54.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Bloom P. (2016), Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion, HarperCollins, New York.
View in Google Scholar
Coke J.S., Batson C.D., McDavis K. (1978), “Empathic Mediation of Helping: A Two-Stage Model,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (7): 752–766.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
De Neys W. (ed.) (2017), Dual-Process Theory 2.0, Routledge, Oxon/New York.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
De Neys W., Pennycook G. (2019), “Logic, Fast and Slow: Advances in Dual-Process Theorizing,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 28 (5): 503–509.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Draper J. (2002), “It Was a Real Good Show’: The Ultrasound Scan, Fathers, and the Power of Visual Knowledge,” Sociology of Health and Illness 24 (6): 771–795.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Dykes K., Stjernqvist K. (2001), “The Importance of Ultrasound to First-Time Mothers’ Thoughts about Their Unborn Child,” Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 19 (2): 95–104.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Evans J.S.B.T., Stanovich K.E. (2013), “Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 8 (3): 223–241.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Fletcher J.C., Evans M.I. (1983), “Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations,” New England Journal of Medicine 308: 392–393.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Gatter M., Kimport K., Foster D.G. et al. (2014), “Relationship Between Ultrasound Viewing and Proceeding to Abortion,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 123 (1): 81–87.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Gettier E. (1963), “Is Knowledge Justified True Belief?,” Analysis 23 (6): 121–123.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Graziano W.G., Habashi M.M. (2015), “Searching for the Prosocial Personality,” [in:] The Oxford Handbook of Prosocial Behavior, D.A. Schroeder, W.G. Graziano (eds.), Oxford University Press, New York: 231–256.
View in Google Scholar
Haidt J. (2012), The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, Vintage Books, New York.
View in Google Scholar
Hoffman M.L. (2002), Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
View in Google Scholar
Hourdequin M. (2015), “The Limits of Empathy,” [in:] Virtue Ethics and Confucianism, S.C. Angle, M. Slote (eds.), Routledge, New York: 209–218.
View in Google Scholar
Hume D. (2011), A Treatise of Human Nature. Volume 1: Texts, D. Norton, M. Norton (eds.), [in:] D. Hume, Clarendon Hume Edition Series, Clarendon, Oxford.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Johnson A. (2011), Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader’s Eye-Opening Journey across the Life Line, Tyndale House, New York.
View in Google Scholar
de Jong-Pleij E.A.P., Ribbert L.S.M., Pistorius L.R. et al. (2013), “Three-Dimensional Ultrasound and Maternal Bonding, a Third Trimester Study and a Review,” Prenatal Diagnosis 33 (1): 81–88.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Kahneman D. (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York.
View in Google Scholar
Mahajan N., Wynn K. (2012), “Origins of ‘Us’ versus ‘Them’: Prelinguistic Infants Prefer Similar Others,” Cognition 124 (2): 227–233.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Marquis D. (2007), “The Moral-Principle Objection to Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” Metaphilosophy 38 (2–3): 190–206.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Mencius [Mengzi] (2004), Mengzi, trans. B. Van Norden, Hackett, Indianapolis.
View in Google Scholar
Miller C. (2013), Moral Character: An Empirical Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Mills C. (2018), “Seeing, Feeling, Doing: Mandatory Ultrasound Laws, Empathy, and Abortion,” Journal of Practical Ethics 6 (2): 1–31.
View in Google Scholar
Milne L.S., Rich O.J. (1981), “Cognitive and Affective Aspects of the Responses of Pregnant Women to Sonography,” Maternal-Child Nursing Journal 10 (1): 15–39.
View in Google Scholar
Öhman S.G., Waldenström U. (2010), “Effect of First-Trimester Ultrasound Screening for Down Syndrome on Maternal–Fetal Attachment – A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare 1: 85–90.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Øyen L., Aune I. (2016), “Viewing the Unborn Child – Pregnant Women’s Expectations, Attitudes, and Experiences Regarding Fetal Ultrasound Examination,” Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare 7: 8–13.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Plato (1992), Republic, trans. B. Jowett, Hackett, Indianapolis.
View in Google Scholar
Ruffman T., Then R., Cheng C. et al. (2019), “Lifespan Differences in Emotional Contagion While Watching Emotion-Eliciting Videos,” PLoS ONE 14 (1): e0209253.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Sanger C. (2008), “Seeing and Believing: Mandatory Ultrasound and the Path to a Protected Choice,” UCLA Law Review 56 (2): 351–408.
View in Google Scholar
Shaw L.L., Batson C.D., Todd R.M. (1994), “Empathy Avoidance: Forestalling Feeling for Another in Order to Escape the Motivational Consequences,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (5): 879–887.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
Slote M. (2007), The Ethics of Care and Empathy, Routledge, New York.
DOI
View in Google Scholar
South Dakota [USA] Legislature (2005), “Report of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion,” URL = http://rewire.news/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/South-Dakota-Abortion-Task-Force-Report.pdf [Accessed 08.06.2020].
View in Google Scholar
Unger P. (2006), Living High and Letting Die: Our Illusion of Innocence, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
View in Google Scholar
Waldman K. (2014), “Does Looking at an Ultrasound Before Abortion Change Women’s Minds?,” Slate, URL = https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/01/ultrasound-viewing-before-an-abortion-a-new-study-finds-that-for-a-small-percentage-of-women-sonograms-change-minds.html [Accessed 08.06.2020].
View in Google Scholar
Wolf N. (1995), “Our Bodies, Our Souls: Rethinking Pro-Choice Rhetoric,” New Republic 213 (16): 26, 28–29, 32–35.
View in Google Scholar