Quote:
Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive
That really is an interesting analogy, and I have two comments.
Firstly, most women are able to proceed with their lives during pregnancy. Granted, they may not feel too hot some of the time, but they do not give up their school, work, or social lives for a majority of the pregnancy, so it is really not comparable to being forced to lie in a hospital bed for 9 months straight. There would have to be severe medical complications for this to be the case, and as I have stated before I condone abortion in response to severe medical complications.
Another flaw in this... I don't classify the baby as alive until 10 weeks gestation. So, I have no problem with a woman taking the morning after pill or having an abortion within the first 10 weeks. So the analogy is not comparable. It is more like, the person is given the choice as to whether or not to "plug" yourself into the violinist's body, and if you say yes and don't change your mind before the surgery to plug you in has gone too far, then you have an obligation to save his life.
It is the same with CPR. No-one is forced to give a non-responsive person CPR, but once they have started, they are legally obligated to continue until an ambulance arrives.
|
I don't know if you read the whole paper, but I encourage you to do so. She uses analogies other than the violinist (such as a person occupying a house).
Women are allowed to proceed with their lives as in breathing and living when pregnant but maternal-leave can jeopardize a job not to mention pregnancy in general can challenge or break financial security. Also, pregnancy (of an unwanted child) affects the mental health of a woman as well as any relationships she has with work, boyfriend/husband, parents, etc.
I especially point to Judith Thomson's paper because she addresses the issue of whose rights - mother's or fetus's - outweigh the other's if at all.
Quote:
|
Now some people are inclined to use the term "right" in such a way that it follows from the fact that you ought to allow a person to use your body for the hour he needs, that he has a right to use your body for the hour he needs, even though he has not been given that right by any person or act. They may say that it follows also that if you refuse, you act unjustly toward him. This use of the term is perhaps so common that it cannot be called wrong; nevertheless it seems to me to be an unfortunate loosening of what we would do better to keep a tight rein on. Suppose that box of chocolates I mentioned earlier had not been given to both boys jointly, but was given only to the older boy. There he sits stolidly eating his way through the box. his small brother watching enviously. Here we are likely to say, "You ought not to be so mean. You ought to give your brother some of those chocolates." My own view is that it just does not follow from the truth of this that the brother has any right to any of the chocolates. If the boy refuses to give his brother any he is greedy stingy. callous--but not unjust. I suppose that the people I have in mind will say it does follow that the brother has a right to some of the chocolates, and thus that the boy does act unjustly if he refuses to give his brother any. But the effect of saying, this is to obscure what we should keep distinct, namely the difference between the boy's refusal in this case and the boy's refusal in the earlier case, in which the box was given to both boys jointly, and in which the small brother thus had what was from any point of view clear title to half.
|
I hope that a few people in this thread will read the paper again, here at
THIS link, and discuss what it brings up because we have for so many pages hashed and rehashed the same topics over and over. Let us discuss a new angle.