Thread: Triggering: Abortion???
View Single Post
  (#250 (permalink)) Old
footfoot Offline
My pal's name is foot foot.
Average Joe
***
 
footfoot's Avatar
 
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Location: college

Posts: 111
Points: 10,569, Level: 15
Points: 10,569, Level: 15 Points: 10,569, Level: 15 Points: 10,569, Level: 15
Join Date: March 11th 2009

Re: Abortion??? - April 27th 2010, 08:48 PM

Quote:
What I am saying is that I value the life of the mother equally with the value of the baby. So, if 20,000 women die from illegal abortions, this is better than the approximately 20 million babies who die per year from legal abortions alone.
Even if you grant that the fetus is a human being and has rights, I find it important to examine the situation in that context - who has rights and whose rights outweighs the others.

This is a very interesting paper by Judith Thomson that explores this issue:

Here is an excerpt:

Quote:
I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.
It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
If you would like to read the whole paper (it is fairly easy to read and quite short) I found it at THIS link. (If you can't open that search Judith Jarvis Thomson: A defense of abortion on google and you can find some full prints on the web).
1 user(s) liked this post or found it helpful.