uThomson
assumes for the sake of argument that fetuses really do have the right to life.
uDoes that mean
that the fetus is entitled to use the mother’s body as a life-support system
until it is born?
uThomson
suggests that this need not be true. Suppose the Society of Music Lovers
kidnapped you and hooked you up to a famous violinist to provide kidney
function for nine months. You can get up and leave at any time, but, if you do,
the violinist will die.
uAre you
obligated to stay in bed all that time and let the violinist use your kidneys,
or do you have the right to get up. If
the right to life is an absolute trump card over every other right, then you
do. If not, then there may be circumstances in which personal liberty, or
considerations of the quality of life, can outweigh the fetus’s right to life
in much the way that these considerations can outweigh the violinist’s right to
life.
How many abortions does this justify?
How many abortions does this justify?
Possibly, not a whole lot of them. The idea that
quality of life considerations can outweigh the right to life does not mean
that, in typical abortion cases, it does so.
26 comments:
Suppose the Society of Music Lovers kidnapped you and hooked you up to a famous violinist to provide kidney function for nine months.
So people roam around with fetuses, looking for women to forcibly implant them in?
A better analogy would leave out the kidnapping. It would be more like if there was common knowledge that performing X action has a strong possibility of resulting in an innocent violinist needing to use your kidneys to survive for nine months. Schools teach this truth, society teaches this truth. Everyone knows it. Yet people continue to perform X action, and violinists keep getting forced to depend on someone else to survive - through no action or fault of their own, mind you. They didn't choose to be utterly dependent on another.
Now the question is, if a person chooses to engage in X action, fully aware of the risks, and is thus completely and undeniably responsible for the violinist's nine month dependency on their kidneys to survive, how much responsibility does that person have to the violinist' life?
The pro-life crowd would say the person who made it happen has a responsibility to the innocent violinist. That's why we have legal measures in place for victims to seek justice or compensation when they are harmed by the actions of another.
The other side apparently says, "Sucks to be you, violinists! Yay X action!"
I'm against unwarranted violence anyway.
Oh wait.....violinists. Hmmm. OK, if they are evil violinists, them too.
But really:
How many abortions does this justify?
Possibly, not a whole lot of them. The idea that quality of life considerations can outweigh the right to life does not mean that, in typical abortion cases, it does so.
Abortion providers do not seriously ask anyone to *justify* an abortion.
Legion of Logic said...
The pro-life crowd would say the person who made it happen has a responsibility to the innocent violinist. That's why we have legal measures in place for victims to seek justice or compensation when they are harmed by the actions of another.
None of those legal sanctions include forcing the body of the offender to be used as life-support for the body of the victim.
None of those legal sanctions include forcing the body of the offender to be used as life-support for the body of the victim.
We also would not allow the person responsible for the violinist's predicament to walk away without consequence, let alone celebrate their doing so. There would be no "Shout Your Violinist Death" from Hollywood, and dead violinists would not be swept under the rug and dismissed as a "medical decision" by a particular political party.
Is it necessary to this analogy for the person on life support to be a violinist? Is there something I am missing here?
Pretty much a dumb analogy in any case. The only circumstance the "kidnapping" aspect is even remotely relevant to would be pregnancy as a result of forcible rape.
Legion of Logic said...
None of those legal sanctions include forcing the body of the offender to be used as life-support for the body of the victim.
We also would not allow the person responsible for the violinist's predicament to walk away without consequence, let alone celebrate their doing so. There would be no "Shout Your Violinist Death" from Hollywood, and dead violinists would not be swept under the rug and dismissed as a "medical decision" by a particular political party.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Starhopper said...
Is it necessary to this analogy for the person on life support to be a violinist? Is there something I am missing here?
Not that I can tell.
Pretty much a dumb analogy in any case. The only circumstance the "kidnapping" aspect is even remotely relevant to would be pregnancy as a result of forcible rape.
If the woman is using birth control, I think that still applies. Taking reasonable precautions means she was doing what could be done to avoid pregnancy.
One Brow,
I hope you did not mean what I have extrapolated from your comment - that women who don't use birth control are somehow to blame if they get pregnant when raped? Please tell me that is not what you meant!
I think mainly we all agree that the analogy isn't quite appropriate for one reason or another.
Starhopper said...
I hope you did not mean what I have extrapolated from your comment - that women who don't use birth control are somehow to blame if they get pregnant when raped? Please tell me that is not what you mean
No, not at all. I am saying they are not to blame if they pregnant from consensual sex. Legion of Logic was making a claim about a "strong possibility", but if the woman is using birth control properly, there is only a very small possibility.
Legion of Logic said...
I think mainly we all agree that the analogy isn't quite appropriate for one reason or another.
I will agree it has serious flaws.
"No, not at all. I am saying they are not to blame if they pregnant from consensual sex."
If you had to guess, what percentage of abortions are performed on women who took every reasonable and responsible step to avoid pregnancy? How many unwanted pregnancies occur when the woman is on the pill and/or using condoms or diaphragms with her partner?
I would guess not many. Which means even by the standard you espouse, the overwhelming majority of abortions are not morally justifiable.
"None of those legal sanctions include forcing the body of the offender to be used as life-support for the body of the victim."
Wrong. In most states, after the point of viability, the mother is required by law to be "used as life support" for her child.
As in our previous discussion on this issue, you ignore the fact that parents stand in different moral and legal relationships to their children than random citizens do to other random citizens.
I cannot be arrested for not giving a homeless man a place to sleep or giving him enough to eat. I can be arrested if I fail to provide my child with a place to sleep or enough to eat.
Similarly, just because I am not obligated to provide a random violinist with use of my body does not at all show, or even come close to showing, that a mother is not obligated to provide a child with the use of her body. All these analogies that ignore the uniqueness of the parent/child relationship are doomed to be utterly unconvincing.
Chad Handley said...
"No, not at all. I am saying they are not to blame if they pregnant from consensual sex."
If you had to guess, what percentage of abortions are performed on women who took every reasonable and responsible step to avoid pregnancy? How many unwanted pregnancies occur when the woman is on the pill and/or using condoms or diaphragms with her partner?
Why would I guess? People do study this stuff. It's about half.
Chad Handley said...
"None of those legal sanctions include forcing the body of the offender to be used as life-support for the body of the victim."
Wrong. In most states, after the point of viability, the mother is required by law to be "used as life support" for her child.
So, when I described "the offender" referring to people who harm other people, you immediately leap to "the mother", and the forced continuation of a pregnancy is a "legal sanction"? I acknowledge my whole point is that we treat mothers bodies as less sacrosanct than those of criminal offenders, but I have to admit saying they need to have legal sanctions on them is new to me.
So, to be more charitable, I'm going to guess you actually meant something along the lines of "Correct, but the circumstances of pregnancy are different enough that it's a bad analogy to be compared to a legal sanction", and just didn't carefully enough consider your words. After all, this is a highly, emotionally charged topic, and that happens.
As in our previous discussion on this issue, you ignore the fact that parents stand in different moral and legal relationships to their children than random citizens do to other random citizens.
I thought I was sufficiently clear on that point when I said, "I will agree it has serious flaws." However, if we are going back to the notion of "offender" and "legal sanctions", it's also untrue that we are simply discussing random citizens. Legion of Logic and I had been discussing the case of a person who had caused harm to another person.
I cannot be arrested for not giving a homeless man a place to sleep or giving him enough to eat. I can be arrested if I fail to provide my child with a place to sleep or enough to eat.
That's true. On the other hand, you can't be forced to donate blood to your child (even though almost everyone would), so the amount of care you are required to give does have limits.
Similarly, just because I am not obligated to provide a random violinist with use of my body does not at all show, or even come close to showing, that a mother is not obligated to provide a child with the use of her body. All these analogies that ignore the uniqueness of the parent/child relationship are doomed to be utterly unconvincing.
I will agree it has serious flaws.
"Why would I guess? People do study this stuff. It's about half."
No, it isn't. Read what the study says again.
It says that half of women who sought abortions used contraception *in the month* they got pregnant.
It does not say that half of the women who sought abortions used contraception *at the actual time they conceived.*
If a woman used condoms 9 out of the 10 times she had sex in a month, but got pregnant the 1 time that month she didn't use a condom, she can't claim she took every necessary precaution to avoid being pregnant. She willingly and knowingly engaged in behavior that could lead to an innocent life being dependent on her.
"On the other hand, you can't be forced to donate blood to your child (even though almost everyone would), so the amount of care you are required to give does have limits."
And again, as we discussed before, an abortion is not just refusing to donate an organ or blood, it is destroying the body of the child.
You are not required to donate blood to your daughter, but you are not allowed to dissolve her body in saline because you don't want to donate blood to her. Abortion doesn't just refuse to allow the fetus access to the mother's body, it destroys the fetus.
These pro-abortion analogies are consistently beyond hopeless in terms of their ability to show that a normal abortion is morally acceptable.
Chad Handley said...
It does not say that half of the women who sought abortions used contraception *at the actual time they conceived.*
You don't take the pill or a LARC at the time you have sex. Only 24% of hose using contraception relied on condoms in whole or in part (many use condoms in addition to another method). Reducing the percentage by just under 1/4 still leaves about 40%.
She willingly and knowingly engaged in behavior that could lead to an innocent life being dependent on her.
Got to punish her then, eh?
Chad Handley said...
And again, as we discussed before, an abortion is not just refusing to donate an organ or blood, it is destroying the body of the child.
Refusing to permit an abortion is forcing the mother to donate her uterus for 9 months, something we don't force anyone else to do under any other circumstances, ever.
However, I am more than happy to support an "intact removal" provision in the law, as long as it includes the removal. When the fetus is removed whole, does that allay your objections? I'd bet not.
These pro-abortion analogies are consistently beyond hopeless in terms of their ability to show that a normal abortion is morally acceptable.
The anti-abortion forces are beyond reason in their refusal to acknowledge that they wish to require an action of women that we don't require from convicted criminals.
"You don't take the pill or a LARC at the time you have sex. Only 24% of hose using contraception relied on condoms in whole or in part (many use condoms in addition to another method). Reducing the percentage by just under 1/4 still leaves about 40%."
This is just outright dishonest. No, of course you don't have to take the pill before you have sex, but for the most common form of the pill you do have to take it every day. Just having taken it at some point during the month you got pregnant is not enough to say that your pregnancy was a result of contraceptive failure. It is far more likely that it is the result of a failure to use contraceptives.
"Got to punish her then, eh?"
Absurdly dishonest.
Obviously, my point is the only form of abortion you've been able to provide any sort of moral justification for is an abortion that results from a person getting pregnant despite having taken every reasonable precaution to avoid pregnancy.
My point is, the overwhelming majority of abortions probably do not fall under that category, so you have yet to provide any sort of moral justification for the average abortion.
"Refusing to permit an abortion is forcing the mother to donate her uterus for 9 months, something we don't force anyone else to do under any other circumstances, ever."
A pregnancy is a unique situation in which a child is radically dependent on its mother for survival. So it's really completely unproblematic that there are unique responsibilities placed on the mother.
"However, I am more than happy to support an "intact removal" provision in the law, as long as it includes the removal. When the fetus is removed whole, does that allay your objections? I'd bet not."
No, because just as you are not allowed to dissolve your child in saline because you don't want to donate an organ to them, you are also not allowed to put them outside in the rain to starve because you don't want to donate an organ to them. This is not rocket science: you can refuse to donate an organ to your child, but you're not allowed to take an action that you know ahead of time will kill your child because you don't want to donate an organ to them.
Now, are you actually proposing to outlaw all abortive procedures except intact removal? I'd bet not.
Anyway, all this really avoids the persistent, recurring issue, which is that the arguments you marshal to justify abortion do not justify abortion as it is actually practiced. Most abortions result from a failure to responsibly use contraception and destroy the fetus. What is the moral justification for abortion as it is commonly practiced?
"The anti-abortion forces are beyond reason in their refusal to acknowledge that they wish to require an action of women that we don't require from convicted criminals."
We require actions from all parents that we don't require from convicted criminals. Convicted criminals aren't subject to further imprisonment if their cellmate starves to death, but a parent will be subject to imprisonment if their child starves to death while in their care.
A pregnant woman's responsibility to her child is just part of a general principle in the law that recognizes that parents have unique moral and legal responsibilities to their children. Your idea that this is somehow a problem is baffling to me.
Blogger Chad Handley said...
This is just outright dishonest.
Whatever dishonesty you think you detect in me on this is overwhelmed by the dishonesty you are deceiving yourself with.
In 2014, about 37.8 million U.S. women aged 15–44 were using a contraceptive method. In contrast, only 471,000 abortions were provided to patients who reported they were using contraception in the month they became pregnant.
That's a failure rate of about 1.2%, which is below the expected failure rate of some types of contraceptives and in line with the overall failure rates. That's also out of 652,639 overall abortions in 2014.
It is far more likely that it is the result of a failure to use contraceptives.
"Far more likely" has too many possible definitions to be a useful statement. Let's be generous and say 1/3 of abortions reported during contraceptive use came from misuse or ending the contraceptive in the same month as the abortion. That's still 48% of abortions happening during normal contraceptive use.
Absurdly dishonest.
Punishment is the most obvious meaning of the word "consequences" people love to throw around. When was the last time you used "consequences" with a positive connotation? 'He worked hard, did everything right, and faced the consequences'?
More directly in your case, just above, in a paragraph where I discussed a criminal offender, you took that straight to the a discussion of a woman who had sex without thinking about it. How else am I supposed to interpret that?
Obviously, my point is the only form of abortion you've been able to provide any sort of moral justification for is an abortion that results from a person getting pregnant despite having taken every reasonable precaution to avoid pregnancy.
I find the claim that you can't be forced to use your body to support another to be a sufficient moral claim.
My point is, the overwhelming majority of abortions probably do not fall under that category, so you have yet to provide any sort of moral justification for the average abortion.
The numbers don't back you up on this.
Chad Handley said...
A pregnancy is a unique situation in which a child is radically dependent on its mother for survival. So it's really completely unproblematic that there are unique responsibilities placed on the mother.
Whereas, for any other situation at all, no matter how unique and how radically dependent a person's life might be on someone's willingness to donate a part of their body temporarily or permanently, we don't enforce it.
No,
I didn't think so. So, it's not really about harming the fetus during the abortion after all. I'm glad we can put that red herring aside.
because just as you are not allowed to dissolve your child in saline because you don't want to donate an organ to them, you are also not allowed to put them outside in the rain to starve because you don't want to donate an organ to them.
I can't imagine a situation where putting a child outside in the rain to starve would reduce the need for an organ transplant. I don't see how this addresses the point that you can keep the child inside, feed them, and still can't be forced to donate an organ to them.
This is not rocket science: you can refuse to donate an organ to your child, but you're not allowed to take an action that you know ahead of time will kill your child because you don't want to donate an organ to them.
Because you can't be forced to donate said organ. You don't think that is relevant to your example?
Now, are you actually proposing to outlaw all abortive procedures except intact removal? I'd bet not.
You lose. While I am not a legislator, any proposal that would require intact removal has my support, and any legislator who proposed it would be more likely to gain my vote.
Anyway, all this really avoids the persistent, recurring issue, which is that the arguments you marshal to justify abortion do not justify abortion as it is actually practiced. Most abortions result from a failure to responsibly use contraception and destroy the fetus. What is the moral justification for abortion as it is commonly practiced?
As I mentioned above, I find the desire of the woman to not have her uterus used sufficient justification.
We require actions from all parents that we don't require from convicted criminals. Convicted criminals aren't subject to further imprisonment if their cellmate starves to death, but a parent will be subject to imprisonment if their child starves to death while in their care.
While convicted criminals are not required to care directly for their victims most of the time, they can be and occasionally are required to provide monetary support to them. Try again.
A pregnant woman's responsibility to her child is just part of a general principle in the law that recognizes that parents have unique moral and legal responsibilities to their children. Your idea that this is somehow a problem is baffling to me.
I have no problem with any sort of support that we would ask of any other type of citizen, and in particular, any sort of support we would ask of a father. I just choose to not ask something that we would ask of no citizens, not even fathers.
"When was the last time you used "consequences" with a positive connotation?"
Politicians use the word with a positive connotation all the time, when they say "Elections have consequences!" Notice that only the victors ever say this, and they obviously do not think the results of the election are negative. They like the consequences.
Starhopper said...
Politicians use the word with a positive connotation all the time, when they say "Elections have consequences!" Notice that only the victors ever say this, and they obviously do not think the results of the election are negative. They like the consequences.
I've notice that when politicians say this, they are usually addressing criticisms, not praise. The consequences are negative to the people they are talking to.
Still, well said.
Post a Comment