Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Mary Anne Warren's case for abortion rights

uMary Anne Warren, in “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” argues that the fetus does not have a right to life.
uOnly a person has a right to life.
uFor a human to have a right to life, it needs five criteria.

u1. Consciousness
u2. Reasoning
u3. Self-motivated activity
u4. Capacity to communicate
u5. Self-awareness
Fetuses don’t pass these criteria, and are therefore only potential persons.
They do not  have a right to live, at least not one sufficient to overturn a woman’s right to control her own body. 
Don’t infants fail these criteria as well?
Wouldn’t that justify infanticide? 
uWarren says no. She says that even though the  parents may not want the baby, others in the community do, valuing newborn infants that way we value valuable art works.
uPeople in the country also want newborn infants preserved.
uBut what if we stopped thinking that? Would that mean infanticide would be OK? 
Two philosophers, Michael Tooley and Peter Singer, think that both abortion and infanticide can be justified. 


Kevin said...

valuing newborn infants that way we value valuable art works.

What in the actual hell?

Starhopper said...

Utterly ridiculous. According to this argument, I have no right to life while I'm sleeping. (I'm not conscious.)

Starhopper said...

"the way we value valuable art works"

The body as a work of art.

bmiller said...

But what if we stopped thinking that? Would that mean infanticide would be OK?

Seems that slippery slope has already been slid down in some states in the US.

One Brow said...

I don't agree with this position.

Starhopper said...


Just look at this study.

Now, go to Table 1.

I personally have "positive attitudes" toward: Religious people, Fishing, Alcohol, Prayer, Asian food, and foreign foods.

And I have negative attitudes toward: "fathers" (because my own was an abusive husband who would regularly beat my mother - and me, for good measure), Atheists, Jazz (well, neutral, maybe), tattoos, and (most) big cities.

See? I just don't fit in!

bmiller said...

Page not found! Link not working Starhopper.

I figured you for a tattooed father that pal'ed around with Atheists while listing to Jazz in Baltimore. I need to re-calibrate.

Starhopper said...

Damn! The link doesn't work for me either. Oh, well. I remain unclassifiable!

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

God and the Deep Structures of Being

For the next few weeks I will develop my Deep Strictures argument (Transcendental Signifiers). It beings with a Prolegomena so this is before we are in a position to make an argument,It;s just laying the ground work, But it offers a new God argument no one else makes.Western thought has always assumed a logos, a first principle that gives meaning to all ambiguity and grounds all knowledge and norms. This concept has been embodied in many different ideas, collectively Jacques Derrida calls them “transcendental signifiers” (TS).

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Prolegomena part 2

Still setting up the TS argument for God's existence, This is part 2 of the Prolegomena where I explain about Transcendental Signifies and deal with TAG, separatism that argument fro my own. Again my own original argumemt the Existence of God, and as always, for rational warrant rather than proof,