- Abortion is either right or wrong.
- If it is right, then people should be allowed to kill fetuses.
- Killing fetuses is wrong.
- Hence, abortion is not right.
- If it is wrong, then women won’t have the right to decide if a fetus should grow inside of her.
- Women do have the right to decide if she wants to develop a fetus inside of her.
- Hence, abortion is not wrong.
C. Abortion is both right and wrong.
I'm confused whether this example would be valid or invalid because the first premise is saying that abortion is right or wrong but the conclusion says that it is both right and wrong. Does this mean that it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false for this reason?
The original argument is: Abortion is either right or wrong. But if it’s right, then people should be permitted to kill fetuses and killing fetuses is wrong. Hence, it’s not right. And if it’s wrong, then people should not be permitted to kill fetuses and a woman would not have a right to decide whether a fetus should be allowed to develop inside her. But a woman does have a right to decide whether a fetus should be allowed to develop insider her. Hence, abortion is not wrong. So, abortion is right and wrong.
I only numbered it to help see the premises and conclusion. I'm asking if this argument as a whole is valid or invalid in terms of philosophy.