| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Carter Smith" |
| Date: |
21 Feb 2005 09:14:31 PM |
| Object: |
On Abortion |
There are a number of questions that come up when talking about abortion.
a.. Is the fetus a person?
b.. Does it have a right to life?
c.. Does the mother have an obligation to the fetus?
a.. In cases of consensual sex
b.. In cases of rape
c.. In cases of a risk to the mother's health
d.. In cases of a risk to the mother's life
e.. In cases of a risk to the mother's lifestyle
The first question is usually the fall back question but there is no clear
definition of what a person is and so the debate for and against abortion
then moves on to say that it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person or not.
Whether the fetus is a person or not, has no bearing on the right (or lack
thereof) to have an abortion.
Judith Jarvis Thompson is a professor of philosophy at MIT. Her first
analogy goes something like this:
Suppose a very famous violinist is dying and the Society of Music Lovers is
searching far and wide for someone with his blood type to keep him alive. It
turns out that someone is you. You find yourself kidnapped and hooked up to
this violinist. This is in no way something you would or did agree to. If
you unplug yourself he dies. But it's only for nine months.
Since you were forced into this position outside of your will, you have no
obligation to remain hooked up. It would be nice of you but not required
since the violinist has no right to use your body.
This analogy can only be applied to cases of rape. The problem is that the
violinist has no relation to you. I don't think it's a wild assumption that
if a family member were in need, other family members would feel compelled
and willing to do anything they could to save the other person's life. Even
if it meant being plugged in for nine months or several years. In cases of
rape you did not chose to have the child but the fact of the matter is that
it is your child. It is your own flesh and blood. One reason for believing
that aborting a fetus created as a result of rape is that the mother doesn't
want to see the face of their attacker every day of their life for the rest
of their life. Well, it's not something that is going away. Whether the baby
is born or not, it is not something that will be forgotten. So aborting the
baby is just a placebo. It doesn't make things better. It just adds another
unhappy chapter to your life. There are better alternatives such as
adoption. The members of the Society of Music Lovers should be locked up for
kidnapping you. Considering it's not necessary to be physically attached to
another person to save there life ever, the violinist example falls short
because it doesn't actually fit the picture of a pregnancy. In real life you
'd just have to decide whether or not to keep donating blood to the
violinist or give him your kidney. A fetus is not just some random person.
And you're not morally obligated to donate body parts to hospitals.
One of her first assumptions is that a mother has a right to what happens to
her body and that everyone would agree. But what does it mean to have a
right to your body? Except in cases of rape the mother chose to have sex. I
would find it reasonable to assume that by choosing to have sex, one chooses
to accept the consequences. However, this never comes up in Thompson's
arguments.
Her next argument deals with cases where the life of the mother is at risk.
That is, the mother will die if she has the baby. In modern society these
cases are so rare that this argument is usually just ignored.
A key quote from Thomson is as follows:
It cannot be seriously thought to be murder if a mother performs an abortion
on herself to save her life. It cannot be seriously said that a mother must
sit passively by and wait for her death.
Actually it can be seriously said. But by claiming it can't be seriously
said, Thompson simply assumes the argument is ridiculous as a way to avoid
addressing the issue. And the issue is accepting consequences. Whenever one
goes to the doctor it is often necessary to sign a form stating you
understand the risks of the procedure and accept them. By engaging in sex
you accept the fact you could very well get pregnant and that being pregnant
imposes certain health risks.
However, Thompson also has a response to this idea of consequences and
responsibility:
The mother's biological relationship to the fetus does not give her any
special responsibility for it. You only have special responsibility for
another person if you voluntarily assume it. And the mother does not
voluntarily assume special responsibility for the fetus simply even if the
pregnancy is the result of consensual sexual activity.
Another way of stating this position is:
Yes your honor, I put the gun to his head and I pulled the trigger but how
can I possibly be held responsible since I did not voluntarily assume his
death?
This argument was more recently found in the attitudes of certain mothers of
certain army and military personnel. Their sons and daughters had signed up
the service because of the promise of money to pay for college. They had
assumed they'd just do the drills and whatnot and walk away with a pile of
cash never having seen battle. And when the Iraq war started suddenly their
denial of the possible consequences of joining the service wasn't doing them
any good and they cried foul. Thompson and these mothers would like to
believe that choosing to perform certain actions in no way shape or form
constitutes an acceptance of the possible consequences. Now there's
something that can't seriously be thought. And yet they say such things in
all seriousness.
It's likely the case that few who are Christian are pro-abortion. In an
effort to address this audience she turns to the Bible and the story of the
Good Samaritan. The story basically goes that a man was brutally attacked
and left for dead. A number of people just walked on by but a Samaritan
dressed his wounds and paid for a room at an Inn and agreed to pay any
additional charges incurred when he returned (Luke 10:30-37).
After considering a case where 38 people witnessed a murder and did nothing
(1). Not so much as call the police she attempts to explain what Jesus was
talking about.
At all events it seems plain that it was not morally required of any of the
38 to rush out to give direct assistance at the risk of his own life, and
that it is not morally required to give long stretches of his life - nine
months or nine years - to sustaining the life of a person who has no special
right to demand it.
..it is worth drawing attention to the fact that in no state in this country
is any man by law compelled to be even a Minimally Decent Samaritan to any
person.
The first statement relies on the assumption that a fetus never has a
special right to the mother's body. Considering this assumption relies on
the idea that a mother has to choose to take that responsibility separate of
having sex which relies on the notion that choosing one's actions has no
relation to accepting the consequences which is clearly false, the whole
house of cards falls down. The statement is correct but it has nothing to do
with abortion. You are not morally required to risk your life for another.
But then, the Good Samaritan didn't risk his life either. The attackers were
gone by the time he arrived.
The second statement is just flat out false. Many cities have Good Samaritan
laws. They were brought about because of cases like Kitty Genovese. Those 38
people today could very well have been charged with a crime and sent to
prison. You are not allowed to leave the scene of an accident for this
reason. It is your duty to report what you saw to the police.
You may have noticed the term "Minimally Decent Samaritan." This is an
attempt by Thompson to lower the standards. She would like to claim that we
are not morally obligated to be Good Samaritans and only Minimally Decent
Samaritans. This is because she doesn't understand the parable. By Thompson'
s standards the Good Samaritan was only minimally decent. You are only
morally required to help others so far as there is not a great cost to
yourself. She then argues that carrying a child and giving birth makes the
mother a Good Samaritan. Perhaps this verse will be of some enlightenment to
Thompson:
So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded
you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty
to do. (Luke 17:10)
She continually attempts to apply cases of morality where one helps a
stranger (going the extra mile) to where one is doing their duty. If a
family member is in need it should be obvious you have a moral obligation to
help them any way you can. Carrying a child which is your own flesh and
blood isn't a matter of going above and beyond what is required. It's a
matter of duty. Chris Rock has a bit about two types of black people. He
makes a comment that one type brags about how they don't abuse their
children. How they feed them and how they treat them well. Chris Rock asks
the obvious question, "what? Would you like a cookie?" You are not morally
superior for not abusing your children. You are not morally superior for not
killing your own flesh and blood. You are an unprofitable servant only
having done your duty. Thompson, like the people in Chris Rock's monologue
want to pretend that doing your obligations is some kind of Moral Mountain
that one is not actually required to climb. There is no mountain. You are
not climbing. You are walking a level path.
In cases of the mother facing death or rape it is a very difficult
situation. For the secular world all they can try to do is rationalize their
actions. For Christians we have forgiveness. It is often the case that we
come across situations where feel that the right thing to do is sin or that
we have no choice but to sin. We need to recognize that just because we
rationalized it in our mind doesn't make it right. If you are raped or your
life is at risk you may rationalize an abortion. We rationalize lots of
immorality. That doesn't make it right. One can only pray that they never
end up in such a situation and if they are that they have the strength to do
what is right.
Thompson also offers the example of one opening a window and burglar getting
in. One cannot say that the burglar can stay simply because the open window
allowed him in. This would work if we were talking about burglars and not
the act of sex. When consenting to sex without protection you are quite
literally taking an active role to entice the "burglars" into your house.
You cannot invite a burglar into your house, offer him your TV and then call
the cops and claim you were robbed when he accepts. She then considers the
case where bars were put up and the burglar only gets in because of a
defect. But again, this only works when you're talking about burglars.
During consensual sex, one is taking a very active role to entice burglars
into ones house. It's more like setting up a bird feeder behind plate glass
with lots of food, going outside and telling birds that it's there and then
pretending it's the bird's fault when one manages to smash through the
window. Thompson further attempts to extrapolate this false analogy by going
with the analogy of people seed. Instead of burglars, it's people seed
floating around. But, once again, this fails to account for the fact that
during consensual sex, one is taking an active role to get the people seed
into the house. It doesn't just magically get there. There is a very
distinct physical act which results in the people seed getting into the
carpet. It is more like noticing people seed is floating around outside and
opening a window only to put a fan in it to suck in the outside air in an
effort to attract the people seed.
The only thing Thompson gets right about this analogy is at the end when she
states
But this [locking down the house] won't do-for by the same token anyone can
avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway, by never
leaving the house without a (reliable!) army.
She is correct in that this again only applies to rape. The act of
consensual sex not only invites but actively encourages pregnancy. One knows
the short comings of various barriers. By using them you accept the possible
risks. Thompson wants to believe that we have some right to sex without
consequences. This is not the case.
Mary Anne Warren is also pro-abortion but criticizes Thompson; mainly for
her violinist example. Thompson attempts to apply her example to every
situation from rape to risk of life to the mother to going above and beyond
what is morally required. And as demonstrated above, clearly falls short.
Warren argues that only with rape does Thompson's argument hold up and all
other situations must be closely examined.
However, after starting off on the right foot, Warren goes off on her own
misguided tour of morality.
..it is absurd to suggest that forgetting the pill one day might be
sufficient to obligate a woman to complete an unwanted pregnancy.As we will
see, the moral right to obtain an abortion is not in the least dependent
upon the extent of which the woman is responsible for her pregnancy. But,
unfortunately, once we allow the assumption that a fetus has full moral
rights, we cannot avoid taking this absurd assumption seriously.
Warren uses the term "absurd" a couple times to try to get the reader into
the mindset that this argument is stupid and not worth considering so the
reader will agree and not bother to really consider what this argument is
saying. This argument can also be written as
It is absurd to suggest that drinking and driving one day and killing
someone might be sufficient to obligate a court to sentence the driver to
prison.
Or
It is absurd to suggest that killing someone in a fit of rage one day might
be sufficient to obligate a court to sentence the killer to life in prison.
It's a popular mindset that we are obligated second chances when we screw up
and are exempt from the consequences. It is often that case that people
screw up "just once" and inflict serious harm on themselves and others. It
only takes one time to pull a trigger to kill someone. It only takes one
time to drive drunk and kill somebody. The fact you didn't kill somebody
prior or didn't drive drunk the other thousands of days you've been alive
does not change the fact you are directly responsible for this time and
nothing prior is going to change that. You do not get one free bank robbery,
one free burglary, one free homicide. A court may show mercy but it is by no
means obligated.
Likewise, forgetting to take precautions just once and getting pregnant in
no way removes the fact you are responsible for your actions and must accept
the consequences.
Another problem is dealing with the concept of "Full Moral Rights" and "The
Right to Life." Namely, how it all fits together. Is the right to life the
crown or basis? Warren would like to argue that the right to life comes
after having full moral rights and that can only be had if you're a person.
So Warren describes 5 criteria for personhood:
a.. Consciousness and the ability to feel pain
b.. Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex
things)
c.. Self-motivated activity
d.. The ability to communicate
e.. The presence of self-awareness and self-concepts
She then goes on to say that not all of the criteria must be met for
personhood but "sufficiently" many. What must be proven is that a fetus does
not possess any of the qualities. She also distinguishes between genetic and
moral humanity. A common argument that a fetus is a human is that it is the
product of human reproduction and a human cannot give birth to anything but
a human. Warren chooses these 5 criteria for the reason that they don't deal
with genetic humanity.
She then argues that
Whether or not it would be indecent for a woman in her seventh month to
obtain an abortion just to avoid having to postpone a trip to Europe, it
would not, in itself be immoral, and therefore it ought to be permitted.
This basically boils down to that she believes that abortion is never wrong
at any time during the pregnancy. At best in the later stages of pregnancy a
fetus has features 1-5 only to the extent that a guppy does, so even in the
later stages of pregnancy a fetus has no more of right to life than a guppy
does. This poses a problem because even a newly born infant doesn't posses
these 5 criteria which leads to the criticism that Warren supports
infanticide.
Warren counters with two points:
a.. It deprives people wanting to adopt of the pleasure of adopting the
child.
b.. It upsets those who-though they do not want to adopt them -would like
to see newborn children kept alive.
However those two points also apply to the fetus. Warren never really
manages to show that infanticide is not allowed by her reasoning. She simply
argues that the cost of continuing a pregnancy is great but giving up an
already born child is easy. However this just results in newborns having the
same moral standing as animals in the Tradition View. That is, they have no
moral standing. You wouldn't kill an infant for the same reason you wouldn't
kill a dog; it makes you more likely to be violent towards those with moral
standing. It's not that it's wrong to kill an infant. It can just lead to
you committing immoral acts. This doesn't actually solve the problem of her
view supporting infanticide.
The only way Warren could get away from infanticide is to add additional
criteria that in order for the abortion to be okay the mother must have a
right to control the fate of the fetus. While in the womb it's the mother's
body so she has that right. As soon as the baby is born though, that right
is gone. However she then goes on to say that if an infant is "defective"
destroying it is permissible. But then tries to play it off by claiming that
by point 2 they should be preserved. This makes no sense. Basically it's
okay for infanticide but because it's okay it's not okay. Warren basically
fails to make a solid point to defend her view.
Another objection to Warren is that a guppy will never be a human but a
fetus is a potential person and therefore should have the same moral rights
as a full human. Warren attempts to make an analogy using the case of a
spaceman to argue against this idea:
Suppose that our space explorer falls into the hands of an alien culture
whose scientists decide to create a few hundred thousand or more human
beings, by breaking his body into its component cells, and by using these to
create fully developed human beings, with, of course, his genetic code. We
may imagine that each of these newly created men will contain all the
original qualities of the spaceman and be real people. Imagine it will only
take seconds, and that its chances of success are very high, and that our
explorer knows all of this, and also knows that these people will be treated
fairly. I maintain in such a situation he would have every right to escape
if he could, and thus deprive all of these potential people of their
potential lives; for his right to life outweighs all their rights to life
together, in spite of the fact they are genetically human, all innocent, and
all have a very high probability of becoming people very soon, if he only
refrains from acting.
I find it interesting that Warren objects to Thompson on the grounds her
violin example can only apply to rape and then presents her own very similar
analogy that can't possibly apply to anything but rape. Warren is attempting
to abstract the concepts and falls of the cliff of reason. I don't follow
how not allowing the process of procreation to even begin shows that
potential people can be justifiably aborted. By leaving, the spaceman
effectively doesn't have sex to begin with. Nothing is destroyed because
nothing is created. Warren thinks she's arguing that we're not obligated to
allow potential people from becoming people. What she's actually arguing is
that we're not obligated to allow potential people to come into existence.
And all I have to say to that is, okay. So there's nothing morally wrong
with the natural process by which sperm and eggs die. I don't think this is
anything we didn't already know.
Jane English takes on the issue of abortion from a different angle. She uses
the notion of self-defense. If self defense is never allowed then neither is
abortion. If it's allowed to protect ones life then abortion is okay if the
mother is facing death. If when threatened with serious health risks, then
abortion is okay if the mother's health is at risk. She then adds two more
ideas. One is that if life prospects are at risk then it's okay. For
instance, you're a highly trained surgeon and a hypnotized attacker kidnaps
you and takes you back to the mad scientist who will erase your memory. The
only choice is to kill the scientist or lose all your knowledge of medicine.
She believes this applies to teenagers, who if they go through with the
pregnancy, face serious changes to their lifestyle. The last idea is that if
it's okay to kill in self defense when any damage to your life prospects is
possible. English accepts the surgeon example where serious damage to life
prospects is going to happen.
The alternative story is what if the hypnotized scientist only comes out at
night and you know this and all you have to do to avoid being put in a bad
situation is not come out at night. This is analogous to abstinence. Another
added detail is that you should carry mace and if that fails you must accept
the result. This is analogous to using a contraceptive and it failing.
The other obvious problem with the version English accepts is again the word
"kidnapped." English, Warren and Thompson all rely on the idea of being
kidnapped to try to make their points. And the only time being "kidnapped"
applies to pregnancy is rape. So basically her story works out that if you'
re raped and you face serious life consequences that you are morally allowed
to have an abortion regardless of the fact that the fetus is innocent.
Even if it was not a matter of kidnapping and merely a matter of
"self-defense" there is no blaming the victim in when one is mugged. One
cannot say "oh, you just shouldn't have been out on that street at that
time." However, unless it is a rape, one is fully responsible for becoming
pregnant. They chose to have sex and they chose not to take proper
precautions. And by choosing to have sex they chose to accept the
consequences. Self defense doesn't work because it has no parallel to
becoming pregnant. You cannot choose not to be targeted by someone. You
cannot tell an attacker not to attack you before they even act. You can
choose not to have sex.
English then also takes the position that a fetus is not a person and goes
from there. She goes back to the original position and argues that the view
on abortion needs to be psychologically viable. We cannot allow late term
abortion because it's not psychologically viable that we are to care for
young infants but not care for late term fetuses which look very much like
newborn babies. She points to the case where New York nurses alternated
between caring for 6 week premature infants and disposing of aborted 24 week
fetuses. Basically the aborted fetuses were only about 6 weeks younger than
the babies they were caring for. It was emotionally traumatic for the nurses
to do this as there was no way for the nurses to see any difference between
the two.
English basically relies on the idea that we can't relate to a fetus in the
early stages and that's why it's okay to abort it. While it's not okay to
abort a late term fetus because one cannot psychologically distinguish it
from a newborn. The net result is that she fails to prove that it doesn't
matter if a fetus is a person or not since her distinction requires that the
fetus be a person. So it is in fact necessary to prove that a fetus is not a
person before attempting to show its okay to abort it.
Don Marquis just doesn't touch the issues of rape or when the life of the
mother is at risk. Instead he takes a more general approach and comes up
with two questions: "What makes killing an adult human being wrong?" and "Is
this same feature seen in an abortion?" His strategy is then to show that
there exists a feature of killing that is necessary in order for it to be
wrong, and that that feature is also a necessary part of abortion. By
"necessary" we mean that it must be there. Heat is a necessary condition to
melt ice. However a match is a sufficient source of heat as many things can
produce heat. If he shows this, then abortion is morally wrong. In order to
show that abortion is not wrong, one is required to show that there exists a
necessary feature of killing an adult that is not present in an abortion.
Marquis begins by considering all the people involved in the case of a
killing. Suppose A kills B. We can consider how A is affected, how B is
affected and how those who knew B were affected. In the first instance A is
desensitized to violence. But that isn't what makes killing wrong. That is
an effect of killing being wrong. This is the same type of argument that
English uses in the New York nurses example. And certainly the people who
knew B would be upset but that doesn't make killing wrong as killing hermits
is also wrong. This is similar to Warren's argument against infanticide. So
the only thing left is to consider the affect on the victim.
He then argues that what makes killing someone wrong is not the changing of
the biological state, but rather the denying that person of the enjoyment of
living. Just as an adult is denied the life he would have had, an abortion
denies the fetus the life it would have had. And since this is why killing
an adult is wrong, it is also wrong to have an abortion.
One problem with his argument is that it doesn't necessarily apply if the
fetus is so deformed that it cannot have a future similar to a normal human.
It also doesn't work if one is convinced that it's not always wrong to kill
an adult as Thompson and English attempt to argue. However, they showed that
it's not always wrong to kill an adult but failed to show that such
situations had any relationship to an abortion.
Two other main objections are presented. One is that a better explanation
for what makes killing wrong exists other than Marquis' and doesn't have
anything to do with abortion. One explanation is the desire account. What
this basically argues is that it is necessarily wrong to kill someone only
when they desire to live. It then assumes a fetus has no desire to live. And
we assume we can assume this because we assume the fetus is not sentient. It
merely has a metabolism but no real mental activity. It's not thinking. But
this has nothing to do with Marquis' argument since his argument deals with
"potential" not what is currently happening. It also fails because it is
wrong to kill someone just because they don't want to live.
If we go with the idea that it is a sufficient condition for the wrongness
of killing then the idea actually adds to Marquis. We can then argue why it
is wrong to kill people who want to die but have a valuable future and also
why it is wrong to kill those who are terminally ill but do not want to die.
Wanting to die has nothing to do with the correctness of killing someone. A
person can want to die and yet it will not be morally right to kill them as
mentioned prior. And in the case of capital punishment, the criminal can not
want to die all he wants but it is morally the correct thing to do, to put
him to death for the betterment of society and as a punishment for his
crimes. So really, desire is not a sufficient measure for judging the
morality of killing.
The other argument is the discontinuation argument. This basically says that
the killing of a human is wrong because it causes the cessation of life. But
this fails since it is wrong to kill a person who is in a coma but has a
chance to recover and lead a valuable life. A fetus can be considered to be
in a coma. Therefore it is not a necessary condition in both cases.
The final objection is that contraception must also be wrong by Marquis'
argument. However for them to assume this they must also believe that by
Marquis' argument it is morally wrong for one's "seed" to die as happens
naturally on a regular basis. Without fertilization, there is no future. The
only thing contraception changes, is that in some cases, it dies outside the
body rather than inside. This is a biological fact. And by Warren's spaceman
example, it's perfectly okay to not offer your seed to be used to bring
about fertilization. Claiming that Marquis' argument goes against
contraception is as ridiculous as claiming it's immoral to not have sex.
1. http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/kitty_genovese/
www.icarusindie.com
.
|
|
| User: "Miss Anne Thrope" |
|
| Title: Re: On Abortion |
23 Feb 2005 09:57:23 AM |
|
|
Oh c'mon, I could have taken the bus, and HAD an abortion in less time
than it took me to get through this brain flatulence of yours.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
