Conquer Club

So, it's a current topic in my philosophy class, which is something along the lines of "Contemplating Contemporary Moral Issues." I find the class rather interesting because of the analogies given and so forth, namely on the ones concerning abortion. We've covered both sides, but I've found a defense on abortion quite interesting, so I'm posting to see people's responses. I'm typing it off memory so it might be slightly different or from my point of view... The author is a woman with last name Thompson.

---------------

Most pro-choice argue that a fetus isn't a human, etc. Most people that are pro-life have the base of their argument rely on the fact that a newly conceived fetus is indeed a human being and thus has a right to life. If the mother aborts the fetus, she infringes on that fetus' right to life.

Thompson goes and, although she disagrees personally with the claim that a fetus is a person, decides to AGREE for the sake of her argument on the premise that a fetus IS a person. This part is crucial, as I've debated with god knows how many morons that don't understand the entire concept of "agreeing with a certain premise you might disagree with for the sake of an argument." Through agreeing on the premise that a fetus is a person, she argues that it still does NOT have a right to life because of its dependency on another.

First we begin with the case of rape, and whether or not it is morally permissible to abort the fetus. She alludes to a hypothetical situation where you are kidnapped against your will whilst unconscious and wake up being "attached" to a famous violinist. This famous violinist was going to die, and the "Society of Music Lovers" found out you had the only blood match to save him. You are hooked up to him and are acting like a human dialysis machine for his kidneys. You are told that you will have to accompany with him wherever you go for a full 9 months until his own kidneys are able to recover.

In this case, Thompson argues, the violinist has a right to life. By a pro-life argument, if you unplug yourself, you are violating his right to life. But does that mean you are unjustly killing him because you were hooked up to him against your will? She states it's "frightfully nice" if you decide to stay with him for 9 months (thus potentially canceling all current plans, such as school, marriage, relationships, etc.), yet you're NOT infringing on his right to life if you decide to unplug yourself and kill him. And who says it needs to be 9 months? Would the situation be different if it was 9 years? A lifetime? The time spent attached is irrelevant to the moral permissibility of an action, rather just shows what type of character you have.

After tackling abortion, she continues onto people who get pregnant unwillingly, through consensual sex. For many argue that "if you decide to engage in intercourse, you are open to the chance you might get pregnant." However she denies that claim, assuming you took the preventative measures to ensure you weren't going to get pregnant. For example, say you left your window open at night, and a homeless person decided to crawl inside. Does he now have a right to live with you, as you were negligent and left it open? Of course not, you did not consent to having that person come inside, even though you knew there was a slight chance a homeless person could crawl through. To continue and take it further, what if you placed bars on all your windows at night to prevent a homeless person from coming in, yet one of the bars bought from the company was defective (as 1/10,000 condoms are). You took the precautionary measures not to let a homeless person in, but he got in anyways. Are you now obligated to take care of this homeless person for 9 months until he leaves? Or however long, as time as said before is fairly irrelevant when looking at the moral permissibility of an action. Keep in mind, kicking this homeless person out on the street WOULD be killing him in this hypothetical situation. He has no other means to survive. While it would be NICE to take him in, are you going to argue it is morally impermissible to do so?

Her argument was much better phrased than mine, yet I tried to keep it relatively short, and still failed at doing so. Anyways, opinions or counterarguments? Keep in mind this is only concerning the moral permissibility of abortion and is irrelevant to taking care of the baby after birth or anything of that sort.

I'm pro-choice, but I've always based my position on the subjectiveness of when a fetus is a human. I think that this question is really just a matter of opinion. My personal opinion is that fetuses are human enough to warrant protection, and so I don't think that abortion is moral (with certain exceptions, of course.) That said, I think that it is equally immoral to impose my subjective opinion on anyone else.

For the sake of argument (as I'm basically pro-choice, I'm just certain of what choice I'd make) I'll look at this.

1) The first thing to consider is whether it is morally permissible to allow someone to die when you have the power to stop that death. If my son needed a kidney and mine was a match, he'd have it. It isn't that I'm being a nice guy. It's that I'm being a father. I operate under a moral imperative that states that my children's health comes before my own if necessary. If I must undergo some risk and inconvenience to insure their continued life on this earth, then that is what I'd do. Anything less would be impermissible according to my view of morality.

In the case of rape, it's certainly a terrible situation. A woman who aborts a fetus in that situation would certainly not be guilty of murder in my opinion. Remember, for the sake of argument, it's about my choice not anyone else's. I cannot say, having never been raped, that I would embrace a child born out of it. I can only say that I would hope that I could separate the contemptible father from the innocent child. To an extent it's a bit like killing someone's child as punishment for their crime.

2) The second argument I can't really buy, as there is a huge difference between someone sneaking into your house and a child being conceived. In the latter case children should more accurately be considered a risk, much like getting an STD is a risk. When some one gets an STD they really have no recourse but to treat it. A child though is not a microbe. Children have more rights than bacteria.

The example that you cited has a bit of a hole in it in my view. When you engage in intercourse literally billions (I believe) of sperm are injected into the womb and the birth control is specifically there to keep them from fertilizing the egg. In the above example, you should add that you invited over a billion homeless people into a house that was locked. If that's the case, what right do you have to complain when one forces his way in and sits on your couch. You invited him.

Blinkadyblink wrote:I'm pro-choice, but I've always based my position on the subjectiveness of when a fetus is a human. I think that this question is really just a matter of opinion. My personal opinion is that fetuses are human enough to warrant protection, and so I don't think that abortion is moral (with certain exceptions, of course.) That said, I think that it is equally immoral to impose my subjective opinion on anyone else.

Completely irrelevant to the topic. As said, explicitly at that, we are under the premise a fetus is a person. Anything arguing whether or not that premise is true does not belong here.

FabledIntegral wrote:

Blinkadyblink wrote:I'm pro-choice, but I've always based my position on the subjectiveness of when a fetus is a human. I think that this question is really just a matter of opinion. My personal opinion is that fetuses are human enough to warrant protection, and so I don't think that abortion is moral (with certain exceptions, of course.) That said, I think that it is equally immoral to impose my subjective opinion on anyone else.

Completely irrelevant to the topic. As said, explicitly at that, we are under the premise a fetus is a person. Anything arguing whether or not that premise is true does not belong here.

Dude he just did present an argument as to whether or not a fetus is human. Get your position straight.

I think what FI is saying is that we are assuming that a fetus is a person for the sake of this argument. Sure, someone may disagree, but that's not really the issue we are discussing. I think it's more like "even if we assume as fetus is a person then abortion is still morally permissible because..."

FabledIntegral wrote:

Blinkadyblink wrote:I'm pro-choice, but I've always based my position on the subjectiveness of when a fetus is a human. I think that this question is really just a matter of opinion. My personal opinion is that fetuses are human enough to warrant protection, and so I don't think that abortion is moral (with certain exceptions, of course.) That said, I think that it is equally immoral to impose my subjective opinion on anyone else.

Completely irrelevant to the topic. As said, explicitly at that, we are under the premise a fetus is a person. Anything arguing whether or not that premise is true does not belong here.

My understanding was that your professor's argument operated under the premise that a fetus is a person, not that any argument had to operate under that premise.

CrazyAnglican wrote:For the sake of argument (as I'm basically pro-choice, I'm just certain of what choice I'd make) I'll look at this.

1) The first thing to consider is whether it is morally permissible to allow someone to die when you have the power to stop that death. If my son needed a kidney and mine was a match, he'd have it. It isn't that I'm being a nice guy. It's that I'm being a father. I operate under a moral imperative that states that my children's health comes before my own if necessary. If I must undergo some risk and inconvenience to insure their continued life on this earth, then that is what I'd do. Anything less would be impermissible according to my view of morality.

In the case of rape, it's certainly a terrible situation. A woman who aborts a fetus in that situation would certainly not be guilty of murder in my opinion. Remember, for the sake of argument, it's about my choice not anyone else's. I cannot say, having never been raped, that I would embrace a child born out of it. I can only say that I would hope that I could separate the contemptible father from the innocent child. To an extent it's a bit like killing someone's child as punishment for their crime.

2) The second argument I can't really buy, as there is a huge difference between someone sneaking into your house and a child being conceived. In the latter case children should more accurately be considered a risk, much like getting an STD is a risk. When some one gets an STD they really have no recourse but to treat it. A child though is not a microbe. Children have more rights than bacteria.

The example that you cited has a bit of a hole in it in my view. When you engage in intercourse literally billions (I believe) of sperm are injected into the womb and the birth control is specifically there to keep them from fertilizing the egg. In the above example, you should add that you invited over a billion homeless people into a house that was locked. If that's the case, what right do you have to complain when one forces his way in and sits on your couch. You invited him.

I forgot to mention that we are arguing about the permissibility of an action of morals having no relevance to whether or not there is some attachment between mother and child. We are analyzing the situation (whether or not you feel we should this way) as a purely biological process that the mother has to endure. There is no moral imperative either, according to many, that a father/mother has a moral imperative to further their child's life longer than their own, such as your case in giving a kidney. So I think that's more of your own personal feelings towards the matter, rather than analyzing the permissibility of the moral act itself. Not what a mother/father ought to do, which Thompson clearly states in the argument is her personal feelings as well. We're looking at "is the action permissible" rather "is it what the person ought to do."

The person sneaking into your home is still relevant, to me at least. The number of sperm is irrelevant, merely the fact that you took precautionary measures against it. All it takes is a defect in a condom to allow the sperm through, keep in mind only ONE sperm actually fertilizes the egg as well. Just as all it takes is the very SLIM chance that a bar in your window doesn't hold and a bum comes through. You think that simply by engaging in intercourse that's "inviting" the sperm in? The person never wanted the sperm in, hence the use of a condom/birth control. Just as a person took precautionary measures not to allow the homeless person in, one is taking precautionary measures not to let the egg be fertilized. It is not YOUR fault, rather the fault of a manufacturer producing a defective product.

FabledIntegral wrote:Most pro-choice argue that a fetus isn't a human, etc. Most people that are pro-life have the base of their argument rely on the fact that a newly conceived fetus is indeed a human being and thus has a right to life. If the mother aborts the fetus, she infringes on that fetus' right to life.

Thompson goes and, although she disagrees personally with the claim that a fetus is a person, decides to AGREE for the sake of her argument on the premise that a fetus IS a person. This part is crucial, as I've debated with god knows how many morons that don't understand the entire concept of "agreeing with a certain premise you might disagree with for the sake of an argument." Through agreeing on the premise that a fetus is a person, she argues that it still does NOT have a right to life because of its dependency on another.

wrestler1ump wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:

Blinkadyblink wrote:I'm pro-choice, but I've always based my position on the subjectiveness of when a fetus is a human. I think that this question is really just a matter of opinion. My personal opinion is that fetuses are human enough to warrant protection, and so I don't think that abortion is moral (with certain exceptions, of course.) That said, I think that it is equally immoral to impose my subjective opinion on anyone else.

Completely irrelevant to the topic. As said, explicitly at that, we are under the premise a fetus is a person. Anything arguing whether or not that premise is true does not belong here.

Dude he just did present an argument as to whether or not a fetus is human. Get your position straight.

Blinkadyblink wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:

Blinkadyblink wrote:I'm pro-choice, but I've always based my position on the subjectiveness of when a fetus is a human. I think that this question is really just a matter of opinion. My personal opinion is that fetuses are human enough to warrant protection, and so I don't think that abortion is moral (with certain exceptions, of course.) That said, I think that it is equally immoral to impose my subjective opinion on anyone else.

Completely irrelevant to the topic. As said, explicitly at that, we are under the premise a fetus is a person. Anything arguing whether or not that premise is true does not belong here.

My understanding was that your professor's argument operated under the premise that a fetus is a person, not that any argument had to operate under that premise.

Your understanding was incorrect. Why in the world would I specify that it was NOT her belief in the first place concerning abortion yet argue under a certain premise anyways. If I start the friggin' argument by saying "alright kids, let's argue UNDER THIS PREMISE BEING TRUE," I would assume people would have the basic intelligence not to exit that premise.

It's like the last time I tried arguing in a God vs Science/Logic topic and saw half the people on the science side saying "because the world operates under certain natural laws, entities like God that are supernatural can't exist" ....

SLDFKJSFLDKJSDFLKJSDCKLJCSDLSCl I hate these forums sometimes...

Hey man, I understood it, and had no disagreements...

FabledIntegral wrote:I forgot to mention that we are arguing about the permissibility of an action of morals having no relevance to whether or not there is some attachment between mother and child. We are analyzing the situation (whether or not you feel we should this way) as a purely biological process that the mother has to endure. There is no moral imperative either, according to many, that a father/mother has a moral imperative to further their child's life longer than their own, such as your case in giving a kidney. So I think that's more of your own personal feelings towards the matter, rather than analyzing the permissibility of the moral act itself. Not what a mother/father ought to do, which Thompson clearly states in the argument is her personal feelings as well. We're looking at "is the action permissible" rather "is it what the person ought to do."

Yeah it seems as if you're going for the moral permissibility of an act in society rather than on a personal decision making level. I would argue that some decisions can't / shouldn't be made entirely based on logic. We're emotional beings and the discipline that you're studying seeks to divorce emotion from logic in a way that I'm not entirely comfortable with in this regard. As far as on a societal level, I am not in favor of forcing everyone to see things my way. On a personal level though I see it as my duty to protect those that I can. It's a quandry in which I must choose the lesser of two evils. On the one hand we have imposing a set system of values on an entire country (many of whom disagree with them in this particular case). On the other hand we have different fingers. No, I mean we have the Hypocratic Oath and a medical profession that sees little wrong with breaking it by being paid to kill. Hence there is no easy answer on that one.

FabledIntegral wrote:The person sneaking into your home is still relevant, to me at least. The number of sperm is irrelevant, merely the fact that you took precautionary measures against it. All it takes is a defect in a condom to allow the sperm through, keep in mind only ONE sperm actually fertilizes the egg as well. Just as all it takes is the very SLIM chance that a bar in your window doesn't hold and a bum comes through. You think that simply by engaging in intercourse that's "inviting" the sperm in? The person never wanted the sperm in, hence the use of a condom/birth control. Just as a person took precautionary measures not to allow the homeless person in, one is taking precautionary measures not to let the egg be fertilized. It is not YOUR fault, rather the fault of a manufacturer producing a defective product.

I think the operative point though is that there is a completely reliable and accurate way to avoid pregnancy. If someone were to choose a less accurate method of birth control, then they are assuming a greater risk of pregnancy. There is no getting by the act of will here, in my opinion. The warnings are there that no method of birth control short of abstinence is 100% reliable. To say that it wasn't the fault of the parents when they knew up front that some of the products would be defective (more likely used improperly) is to deny responsibility for choice altogether. Once one knows the risk they are responsible for the consequences, no matter how small the chance was that something would go wrong. When a doctor tells you that you that there is a 3% chance of failure in an organ transplant, it becomes your responsibility to accept or deny that risk. If you die on the table, it isn't because he killed you (assuming that she did all that she could to keep you alive). It was a risk associated with the procedure, and you chose to undertake that risk.

When I saw this thread I considered trolling it... but that's a too interesting point of view. Under what circumstances are we obliged to help keep someone else alive? How much can we be asked to sacrifice for the sake of someone else's life before the whole thing becomes ridiculous?

In an open debate I would argue against considering fetuses persons, human yes, but not persons. This is really intriguing.

I'll have to think about this.

Odd, I never thought this idea was so radical or different. The thought has crossed my mind many times before.

I have several points to make, or rather questions that should be asked in this context, stipulating as asked that the fetus is a human with full human rights:

What if carrying the baby to term will definitely kill the mother, and the child will definitely die either before birth orwithin minutes of birth (never mind why for the purpose of the argument)? Few people would see this as a case where the option of abortion should be turned down.

Is the determining factor the death of the mother?
Ok, the mother is at some risk, but the rest of the factors are the same. What now?
I think most people would still approve of abortion.

OK, the circumstances are a little diffrerent again: Now the mother is at no greater risk than any other , but the child is still certain to die. What now? (This was the situation that Mrs curl and I faced. Rather than have her carry a dying fetus around until the inevitable happened, we chose abortion).
Had there been a reasonable chance of the child surviving (though nastily disabled), our choice might have been different. Luckily I will never have to find out.

But we can change the risk to mother and fetus up and down on a sliding scale. Even assuming that the fetus counts as human and has a full complement of human rights, the question arises: at what point do we consider the risks to the mother more important than the artificially-induced death of a child which had a noticeable chance of dying without intervention?


ANother, and unrelated question:
The thought experiment was proposed above that someone is hooked up to another adult, without their knowledge - can they morally detach themselves if this will kill the other? It's a bit dificult to decide, as the situation is so absurd. So let's change the question again:
A woman becomes pregnant, not through rape, not through a malfunctioning condom (incidentally, they are much less reliable than suggested above), but because, while she was in hospital, under anaesthetic, a doctor impregnated her from a sperm bank. What is her obligation now?

FabledIntegral wrote:
Your understanding was incorrect. Why in the world would I specify that it was NOT her belief in the first place concerning abortion yet argue under a certain premise anyways. If I start the friggin' argument by saying "alright kids, let's argue UNDER THIS PREMISE BEING TRUE," I would assume people would have the basic intelligence not to exit that premise.

It's like the last time I tried arguing in a God vs Science/Logic topic and saw half the people on the science side saying "because the world operates under certain natural laws, entities like God that are supernatural can't exist" ....

SLDFKJSFLDKJSDFLKJSDCKLJCSDLSCl I hate these forums sometimes...

Okay, I think I've figured it out. When you asked for opinions in your first post, I thought you meant opinions on the general topic of the moral permissibility of abortion. Evidentially, I was wrong, and it seems you were asking for opinions on the specific argument that you brought up.

Very interesting argument. The one major flaw I see in it is this:

FabledIntegral wrote:she argues that it still does NOT have a right to life because of its dependency on another.

A newborn infant is more or less equally dependent as a fetus. Moral responsibility for a dependent life still exists - a mother who simply decides she doesn't want her newborn is still held culpable for her actions (or neglect). The dependency of the victim is irrelevant.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Very interesting argument. The one major flaw I see in it is this:

FabledIntegral wrote:she argues that it still does NOT have a right to life because of its dependency on another.

A newborn infant is more or less equally dependent than a fetus. Moral responsibility for a dependent life still exists - a mother who simply decides she doesn't want her newborn is still held culpable for her actions (or neglect). The dependency of the victim is irrelevant.

I am not sure you can say the dependency of the victim isnt relevant at all. Having and raising children is in many ways an issue of taking on a dependent. How people react to that dependency (both before and after the birth) is a relevant factor i would assume. I also think in many cases it might be a bit bogus to suggest the dependency issue is only being thought of from the context of the womb. Id venture a guess a sizeable portion of those who choose to abort are more worried about what happens after the 9 months, than what goes on before it.

I am going to answer all in one rather lengthy post I think...

CrazyAnglican wrote:Yeah it seems as if you're going for the moral permissibility of an act in society rather than on a personal decision making level. I would argue that some decisions can't / shouldn't be made entirely based on logic. We're emotional beings and the discipline that you're studying seeks to divorce emotion from logic in a way that I'm not entirely comfortable with in this regard. As far as on a societal level, I am not in favor of forcing everyone to see things my way. On a personal level though I see it as my duty to protect those that I can. It's a quandry in which I must choose the lesser of two evils. On the one hand we have imposing a set system of values on an entire country (many of whom disagree with them in this particular case). On the other hand we have different fingers. No, I mean we have the Hypocratic Oath and a medical profession that sees little wrong with breaking it by being paid to kill. Hence there is no easy answer on that one.

Seeing as you are pro-choice, I think we agree at least on the sense of moral permissibility. You are arguing what someone "ought" to do, as emotion is involved, and Thompson, the writer of the article very much agrees with your opinion. She just doesn't believe that simply because someone "ought" to do it, doesn't believe they are morally obligated to (aka you would be immoral if you didn't).

CrazyAnglican wrote:I think the operative point though is that there is a completely reliable and accurate way to avoid pregnancy. If someone were to choose a less accurate method of birth control, then they are assuming a greater risk of pregnancy. There is no getting by the act of will here, in my opinion. The warnings are there that no method of birth control short of abstinence is 100% reliable. To say that it wasn't the fault of the parents when they knew up front that some of the products would be defective (more likely used improperly) is to deny responsibility for choice altogether. Once one knows the risk they are responsible for the consequences, no matter how small the chance was that something would go wrong. When a doctor tells you that you that there is a 3% chance of failure in an organ transplant, it becomes your responsibility to accept or deny that risk. If you die on the table, it isn't because he killed you (assuming that she did all that she could to keep you alive). It was a risk associated with the procedure, and you chose to undertake that risk.

Despite the fact we're dealing with (assuming the condom is used 100% correctly and it's ONLY because of the defect of the product) around a 1/10,000 chance. Are you telling me (which it IS very possible you are, you've been making defending this argument quite the hassle!) that you believe that people who don't want to risk having a child should completely abstain? That is if a couple will DEFINITELY not want to take a baby no matter what, they should abstain completely? "Only have sex if you willing to take the chance of getting pregnant." I'm not sure I could go with that, although it's true we're stripping out emotion and arguing from a point of logic, so I'm not really sure where to go with this. I think your argument is valid, yet it doesn't necessary override hers... it more so just conflicts... I'll think about this, and discuss it in class... although I am going to say that if you move to an area where there are TONS of bums, and thus are subjecting yourself to the risk of having them try to break in by moving there, you still are not "inviting" them to come in, just as people engaging in intercourse are not "inviting" the sperm inside the vagina (as in fact they definitely DON'T want it there, and a condom usually wouldn't let them all through anyways).

jonesthecurl wrote:I have several points to make, or rather questions that should be asked in this context, stipulating as asked that the fetus is a human with full human rights:

What if carrying the baby to term will definitely kill the mother, and the child will definitely die either before birth orwithin minutes of birth (never mind why for the purpose of the argument)? Few people would see this as a case where the option of abortion should be turned down.

She does address this as well, I simply wanted to keep my OP as short as possible. She says it depends on the circumstance. If it is a case of rape or not consenting to getting pregnant, we've already established that abortion is morally permissible. However, if the woman DID consent and willingly bring this fetus into the world, and since we are already on the premise that a fetus is indeed a person, then the woman does NOT have the right to abort the fetus, even if her life is endanger. This is because she consented to bringing it and then is going to kill it after to save her own right to life. Since both are persons, both have an equal right to life. This is ONLY in the case where the mother consented, the mother's life is in danger, AND the baby would survive. I think (although I'm not positive) that she stated if the baby would die, then it's permissible for an abortion...

Is the determining factor the death of the mother?
Ok, the mother is at some risk, but the rest of the factors are the same. What now?
I think most people would still approve of abortion.

So as said in teh previous paragraph, then abortion would be permissible only if the child would survive otherwise, even if it would kill the mother. So the death of the mother does NOT play a role in determining the permissibility of it.

OK, the circumstances are a little diffrerent again: Now the mother is at no greater risk than any other , but the child is still certain to die. What now? (This was the situation that Mrs curl and I faced. Rather than have her carry a dying fetus around until the inevitable happened, we chose abortion).
Had there been a reasonable chance of the child surviving (though nastily disabled), our choice might have been different. Luckily I will never have to find out.

Not sure - it's another radical case. I think she is trying to address what is or is not permissible for a wide majority of cases that are relevant, aka cases where a mother did not consent to being pregnant. If the child is certain to die, I believe that the case becomes more relevant to euthanasia than abortion? That's just my guess though.

But we can change the risk to mother and fetus up and down on a sliding scale. Even assuming that the fetus counts as human and has a full complement of human rights, the question arises: at what point do we consider the risks to the mother more important than the artificially-induced death of a child which had a noticeable chance of dying without intervention?

See there isn't a very potential sliding scale, according to Thompson (as I'm not necessarily trying to state my own believes, this thread is about HER argument and the validity of it). It's merely "did the mother consent? Yes/No" Thus, the mother's right ALWAYS trumps the child's 'right to life,' as the 'right to life,' according to Thompson can also be said as to be 'the right not to be killed unjustly.' Since we've established that through analogy it is nice, or even frightfully nice, to stay plugged into the violinist, it wouldn't be unjust not to do so.

ANother, and unrelated question:
The thought experiment was proposed above that someone is hooked up to another adult, without their knowledge - can they morally detach themselves if this will kill the other? It's a bit dificult to decide, as the situation is so absurd. So let's change the question again:
A woman becomes pregnant, not through rape, not through a malfunctioning condom (incidentally, they are much less reliable than suggested above), but because, while she was in hospital, under anaesthetic, a doctor impregnated her from a sperm bank. What is her obligation now?

Erm, how is that not rape? Did she want it to happen? Then she either consented or didn't consent, and that's the entire argument. Just as the entire violinist argument analogy relies soley on the fact that you didn't consent to being hooked up via human dialysis to this person. The analogy is meant to be extreme to show the absurdity of what is expected of woman (to HAVE to go through with a pregnancy, not choose to). It is relevant and not absurd at all, as philosophical arguments are meant to use any hypothetical situation, as implausible as it may be, and hold it true, to see what the outcome would be under those circumstances.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Very interesting argument. The one major flaw I see in it is this:

FabledIntegral wrote:she argues that it still does NOT have a right to life because of its dependency on another.

A newborn infant is more or less equally dependent as a fetus. Moral responsibility for a dependent life still exists - a mother who simply decides she doesn't want her newborn is still held culpable for her actions (or neglect). The dependency of the victim is irrelevant.

She argues that once you take an infant home you thus consent to it being under your protection. Otherwise you could and should put it up for adoption. There is no obligation to bring this baby home. You have the CHOICE to do so.

You would also be surprised how many pro-abortion arguments by philosophers state that what you say is true - that because an infant is also so dependent, it is not morally impermissible to kill it. However this is NOT the stance of Thompson.

got tonkaed wrote:I am not sure you can say the dependency of the victim isnt relevant at all. Having and raising children is in many ways an issue of taking on a dependent. How people react to that dependency (both before and after the birth) is a relevant factor i would assume. I also think in many cases it might be a bit bogus to suggest the dependency issue is only being thought of from the context of the womb. Id venture a guess a sizeable portion of those who choose to abort are more worried about what happens after the 9 months, than what goes on before it.

What goes on after is irrelevant as well however. We aren't talking about anything in the topic except how permissible the act of aborting a fetus is. For example, pretend a pregnancy actually lasts forever. Not 9 months, but for the rest of the mother's life. The fetus still has a right to life. Or in fact the abortion could last for a mere minute, and you could still put up the child for adoption after birth. The argument relies on the fact that time is irrelevant, it doesn't matter how long this pregnancy is, if there was no consent the fetus has no right to use the mother's body, at all, even if for just a minute.

FabledIntegral wrote:

ANother, and unrelated question:
The thought experiment was proposed above that someone is hooked up to another adult, without their knowledge - can they morally detach themselves if this will kill the other? It's a bit dificult to decide, as the situation is so absurd. So let's change the question again:
A woman becomes pregnant, not through rape, not through a malfunctioning condom (incidentally, they are much less reliable than suggested above), but because, while she was in hospital, under anaesthetic, a doctor impregnated her from a sperm bank. What is her obligation now?

Erm, how is that not rape? Did she want it to happen? Then she either consented or didn't consent, and that's the entire argument. Just as the entire violinist argument analogy relies soley on the fact that you didn't consent to being hooked up via human dialysis to this person. The analogy is meant to be extreme to show the absurdity of what is expected of woman (to HAVE to go through with a pregnancy, not choose to). It is relevant and not absurd at all, as philosophical arguments are meant to use any hypothetical situation, as implausible as it may be, and hold it true, to see what the outcome would be under those circumstances.

Well, it's not rape in that a rapist is not interested in offspring, and the hypothetical impregnator here is not interested in sex.
I'm not sure how this affects the morals - just giving a slightly more plausible thought experiment than the violinist. (BTW why does the guy play the violin? is that relevant? what if he was, um, an assembly-line worker, or , um, a doctor specialising in abortions?)

it also segues into another question: in fertility treatments, several eggs are frequently fertilised and implanted, to increase the chances of a healthy pregnancy that reaches term. Sometimes more than one succeeds - there are more twins and triplets around these days for just this reason. But there comes a point at which there can be too many, and it is common practise to abort some. There was one celebrated case where the woman refused to lose any of the 7 (or was it 9) fetuses, despite great risks to herself, and despite the fact that continuing the multiple pregnancy put all the fetuses (feti?) at risk. I don't know the end of the story, I lost track of it, but I doubt it was a happy one.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Very interesting argument. The one major flaw I see in it is this:

FabledIntegral wrote:she argues that it still does NOT have a right to life because of its dependency on another.

A newborn infant is more or less equally dependent as a fetus. Moral responsibility for a dependent life still exists - a mother who simply decides she doesn't want her newborn is still held culpable for her actions (or neglect). The dependency of the victim is irrelevant.

I'm going to have agree with OA on this one. The notion that any one who is dependent on another for there life does not have the right to live harkens back to the nazi's eugenics program. In which people with mental disabilities were murdered because they could not take care of them selfs. If one has no right to live simply because they are dependent on another, then half the worlds senior citizens over 70 don't deserve to live. We ought to just load them into dump trucks and ship them off to processing plants where they can be made into soilent green. To me the argument of 1 in 10,000 condoms breaking really just sounds like a person who wants to have sex with out any repercussions, they don't want to be held accountable for there actions.




P.S. I hope I never have to meet this Thompson woman, she sounds scary

Martin Ronne wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Very interesting argument. The one major flaw I see in it is this:

FabledIntegral wrote:she argues that it still does NOT have a right to life because of its dependency on another.

A newborn infant is more or less equally dependent as a fetus. Moral responsibility for a dependent life still exists - a mother who simply decides she doesn't want her newborn is still held culpable for her actions (or neglect). The dependency of the victim is irrelevant.

I'm going to have agree with OA on this one. The notion that any one who is dependent on another for there life does not have the right to live harkens back to the nazi's eugenics program. In which people with mental disabilities were murdered because they could not take care of them selfs. If one has no right to live simply because they are dependent on another, then half the worlds senior citizens over 70 don't deserve to live. We ought to just load them into dump trucks and ship them off to processing plants where they can be made into soilent green. To me the argument of 1 in 10,000 condoms breaking really just sounds like a person who wants to have sex with out any repercussions, they don't want to be held accountable for there actions.

Actually it's not whether the dependents have the right to live or not, but whether other people are under an obligation to help them stay alive.

MeDeFe wrote:

Martin Ronne wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Very interesting argument. The one major flaw I see in it is this:

FabledIntegral wrote:she argues that it still does NOT have a right to life because of its dependency on another.

A newborn infant is more or less equally dependent as a fetus. Moral responsibility for a dependent life still exists - a mother who simply decides she doesn't want her newborn is still held culpable for her actions (or neglect). The dependency of the victim is irrelevant.

I'm going to have agree with OA on this one. The notion that any one who is dependent on another for there life does not have the right to live harkens back to the nazi's eugenics program. In which people with mental disabilities were murdered because they could not take care of them selfs. If one has no right to live simply because they are dependent on another, then half the worlds senior citizens over 70 don't deserve to live. We ought to just load them into dump trucks and ship them off to processing plants where they can be made into soilent green. To me the argument of 1 in 10,000 condoms breaking really just sounds like a person who wants to have sex with out any repercussions, they don't want to be held accountable for there actions.

Actually it's not whether the dependents have the right to live or not, but whether other people are under an obligation to help them stay alive.

I understand that, I figured people would have the insight to know I understand that with out having to type it. I did imply it. My argument still stands. Look at the last sentence.

Martin Ronne wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Martin Ronne wrote:I'm going to have agree with OA on this one. The notion that any one who is dependent on another for there life does not have the right to live harkens back to the nazi's eugenics program. In which people with mental disabilities were murdered because they could not take care of them selfs. If one has no right to live simply because they are dependent on another, then half the worlds senior citizens over 70 don't deserve to live. We ought to just load them into dump trucks and ship them off to processing plants where they can be made into soilent green. To me the argument of 1 in 10,000 condoms breaking really just sounds like a person who wants to have sex with out any repercussions, they don't want to be held accountable for there actions.

Actually it's not whether the dependents have the right to live or not, but whether other people are under an obligation to help them stay alive.

I understand that, I figured people would have the insight to know I understand that with out having to type it. I did imply it. My argument still stands. Look at the last sentence.

Your own words from before implied that you did not see it that way, but if you did, fine, that saves us a discussion.

Your last sentence fails to be relevant, this is not about accountability, but whether an action is morally permissible or not. Specifically how far we are required to go in order to help someone else stay alive and under which circumstances.

In the hypothetical cases in the OP were over a prolonged time, they would cost the helper resources and be highly inconvenient (to say the least) for them both physically and psychically. What takes precendence in such a situation? One person's well-being and self-determination, or the other person's life? I think the answer is far from clear, are you committing murder if you unplug yourself from the previously mentioned violinist (or factory worker, or whatever), knowing that he cannot survive if you do so? You were hooked up against your will and can now make a choice. If you suddenly find yourself in a situation where you're maintaining someone else's life, are you required to keep doing so or is it also morally permissible to decide against it? It would indeed be frightfully nice to do so, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong not to.

MeDeFe wrote:

Martin Ronne wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Very interesting argument. The one major flaw I see in it is this:

FabledIntegral wrote:she argues that it still does NOT have a right to life because of its dependency on another.

A newborn infant is more or less equally dependent as a fetus. Moral responsibility for a dependent life still exists - a mother who simply decides she doesn't want her newborn is still held culpable for her actions (or neglect). The dependency of the victim is irrelevant.

I'm going to have agree with OA on this one. The notion that any one who is dependent on another for there life does not have the right to live harkens back to the nazi's eugenics program. In which people with mental disabilities were murdered because they could not take care of them selfs. If one has no right to live simply because they are dependent on another, then half the worlds senior citizens over 70 don't deserve to live. We ought to just load them into dump trucks and ship them off to processing plants where they can be made into soilent green. To me the argument of 1 in 10,000 condoms breaking really just sounds like a person who wants to have sex with out any repercussions, they don't want to be held accountable for there actions.

Actually it's not whether the dependents have the right to live or not, but whether other people are under an obligation to help them stay alive.

In a case such as carrying a child, in which the mother is only one capable of keeping the fetus alive, then the question of the dependent's right to live is inextricably linked to the obligation of the mother to keep it alive.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Martin Ronne wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Very interesting argument. The one major flaw I see in it is this:

FabledIntegral wrote:she argues that it still does NOT have a right to life because of its dependency on another.

A newborn infant is more or less equally dependent as a fetus. Moral responsibility for a dependent life still exists - a mother who simply decides she doesn't want her newborn is still held culpable for her actions (or neglect). The dependency of the victim is irrelevant.

I'm going to have agree with OA on this one. The notion that any one who is dependent on another for there life does not have the right to live harkens back to the nazi's eugenics program. In which people with mental disabilities were murdered because they could not take care of them selfs. If one has no right to live simply because they are dependent on another, then half the worlds senior citizens over 70 don't deserve to live. We ought to just load them into dump trucks and ship them off to processing plants where they can be made into soilent green. To me the argument of 1 in 10,000 condoms breaking really just sounds like a person who wants to have sex with out any repercussions, they don't want to be held accountable for there actions.

Actually it's not whether the dependents have the right to live or not, but whether other people are under an obligation to help them stay alive.

In a case such as carrying a child, in which the mother is only one capable of keeping the fetus alive, then the question of the dependent's right to live is inextricably linked to the obligation of the mother to keep it alive.

Still, as in the hypothetical cases, while it would be frightfully nice, does she have to? And if she does, why?