My ethics class has an argument re: Abortion that I've never heard before

[SnyderShrugged]

Trying real hard not to answer the question, aren't you?

All procedures have risks. So do all pregnancies.

But just to make the question easier, feel free to assume that the answer is no. Does that help?

actually, despite your weird snarkiness about it, I'm trying to gain more clarity around the circumstances so I can make a m ore informed decision on where I stand on a tough issue.

Thanks for being a jerk though,

carry on

---------- Post added February-27th-2011 at 02:47 PM ----------

There are risks to any procedure. But assuming good medical care I would consider the risk to a mother during either an abortion, a childbirth, or a bone marrow transplant to be fairly minimal.

Thats fair, for me, it would depend on the actual level of risk in the specific scenario. I dont think I would support forcing a parent to "save" their child in that manner, but it is a very tough one for me to conclude to be honest.

Very thought provoking for sure

[twa]

The question is: Does a child (or any person's) "right to life", include the right to demand that someone else donate their body to being his life support system? Even when it's a case where that other person must function as a life support system, or the second person will die?

Why isn't the question: Is a mother's demand to end a life justifiable?

In your question the child does not demand,it requires support....should we be allowed to kill those that are a burden or inconvenient in our lives?

Shouldn't the default be supporting life?

[shk75]

The argument also fails to acknowledge a basic human notion which is that you are much more likely to save a face you see or a person you know versus an anonymous person. Whether or not that is ethical is another question but many times a baby is aborted before the mother sees it or recognizes it as a person whereas the violinist is a person and you see his face everyday. I think a better analogy would be a person who is dependent on you having a switch to their life. If you let them live you will have less money, less free time, and be emotionally and physically drained. If you let them die none of this will happen and you will have no idea who it was you killed or the effect their death had.

[Larry]

Thats fair, for me, it would depend on the actual level of risk in the specific scenario. I dont think I would support forcing a parent to "save" their child in that manner, but it is a very tough one for me to conclude to be honest.

Very thought provoking for sure

Assume there is no risk whatsoever. Does a person's right to life include the right to demand that someone else's body serve as their life support system?

Even if the donor's only cost is inconvenience. And even if the recipient will surely die without it.

----------

(Paraphrasing another argument the essay makes, later on.)

Heck, let's make the comparison even more unequal.

I will die if I do not take $100 from you.

Does my right to life give me the right to demand it?

Not "would society think you a good person, if you voluntarily gave it, and a bad person, if you refused?" Do I have the right to it?

----------

Now, for all of this, I do see an argument which the essay only touched upon very briefly. Just a few sentences. That I think has some validity.

Specifically: That when people become parents, they lose some rights. Society has a legitimate interest in seeing that parents take care of their children.

Now, to me, that argument is similar to the "she consented to get pregnant" argument: I think that in order to bind someone to a lifetime commitment like that, then the person has to actively consent to the contract.

Analogy: A bank announced that they now hold a lien on my house. They claim they hold this lien because they sent me an offer in the mail, telling me that if I didn't consent to this offer, then I had to send them this card back. I didn't send the card back, therefore I consented.

I don't think anyone would argue that I consented to lose my home when I threw away a piece of junk mail without reading it. Everyone would recognize that, in order for that contract to be valid, I had to actually perform some affirmative action, signifying that I had made an informed consent. (Well, everyone but a bank would agree.)

I believe that, in order to claim that someone is bound to a lifetime contract of support, a "parent contract", then that person has to actually sign it, not just fail to send back the postcard.

But I do recognize that it's an argument which the essay doesn't address.

(BTW, she never did explain why it was a violinist.)

---------- Post added February-27th-2011 at 03:19 PM ----------

Why isn't the question: Is a mother's demand to end a life justifiable?

Perhaps because the issue isn't "does X have the right to kill Y?", it's "does X have the right to chose not to be a life support system, even if that decision will result in Y's death?"

The author did make a point on that subject: That if the host demands to be disconnected from the violinist, knowing that the violinist will die as a result, and if a miracle occurs, and the violinist fails to die, then the host does not have the right to rise up from the surgical table and slit the violinist's throat. That the host's right consists merely of the right to refuse to be a host.

[SnyderShrugged]

Assume there is no risk whatsoever. Does a person's right to life include the right to demand that someone else's body serve as their life support system?

Even if the donor's only cost is inconvenience. And even if the recipient will surely die without it.

----------

(Paraphrasing another argument the essay makes, later on.)

Heck, let's make the comparison even more unequal.

I will die if I do not take $100 from you.

Does my right to life give me the right to demand it?

Not "would society think you a good person, if you voluntarily gave it, and a bad person, if you refused?" Do I have the right to it?

----------

Now, for all of this, I do see an argument which the essay only touched upon very briefly. Just a few sentences. That I think has some validity.

Specifically: That when people become parents, they lose some rights. Society has a legitimate interest in seeing that parents take care of their children.

Now, to me, that argument is similar to the "she consented to get pregnant" argument: I think that in order to bind someone to a lifetime commitment like that, then the person has to actively consent to the contract.

Analogy: A bank announced that they now hold a lien on my house. They claim they hold this lien because they sent me an offer in the mail, telling me that if I didn't consent to this offer, then I had to send them this card back. I didn't send the card back, therefore I consented.

I don't think anyone would argue that I consented to lose my home when I threw away a piece of junk mail without reading it. Everyone would recognize that, in order for that contract to be valid, I had to actually perform some affirmative action, signifying that I had made an informed consent. (Well, everyone but a bank would agree.)

I believe that, in order to claim that someone is bound to a lifetime contract of support, a "parent contract", then that person has to actually sign it, not just fail to send back the postcard.

But I do recognize that it's an argument which the essay doesn't address.

(BTW, she never did explain why it was a violinist.)

I'm leaning toward saying no, that they should not be able to demand it.

Though I still think the distinction needs to be made that in comparring it to abortion, the role palyed that the party that is being asked to pay has to be considered. IE: Mom had sex, got preggers, therefore has responsibility for those actions.

I like the approach that TWA mentioned as well, The perspective of "whos asking for the sacrifice" also should be a determinant.

Like I said though, Tough issue overall.

[Thiebear]

Certainly both parents bear obligations towards the child. But could you strap them down and force a medical procedure against their will in order to save a child's life? Does the obligation extend to a legally enforceable control over the parents bodies after the child is born?

This example shouldn't have included force.. the child is a choice. The not having it, is the second choice.

but as i tried to say in the example: Until Foster care and adoptions are better, you ask a lot of a mother to force them to carry until that is an option also.

and by American standards you are held responsible for "not" doing the commone sense stuff the crazy religious types show us.

Most people get it..

[twa]

I like the approach that TWA mentioned as well, The perspective of "whos asking for the sacrifice" also should be a determinant.

Like I said though, Tough issue overall.

If we start with the default of it is a human life ,and life has inherent value,we must require justification for any action ending it.

Is inconvenience enough of a justification?

The default is life will go on for both...or should be

added

Larry your example above is the parasite analogy,which is a faulty one

The violinist nor a fetus takes from you,it is instead a state of co-existence...we regulate taking life,and err if we do not

[Larry]

If we start with the default of it is a human life ,and life has inherent value,we must require justification for any action ending it.

Is inconvenience enough of a justification?

The default is life will go on for both...or should be

So in your opinion, I cannot demand to be disconnected from the violinist?

In fact, the violinist has the right to demand to be connected to me? After all, it's his life, right?

[twa]

So in your opinion, I cannot demand to be disconnected from the violinist?

In fact, the violinist has the right to demand to be connected to me? After all, it's his life, right?

You can request it....society on the other hand should demand justification

in your example there was no demand to be connected,nor does a fetus demand to be conceived

added

keep in mind you are asking for 3rd party help in the taking of life for your own professed well being/comfort.....which would be closer to requiring a involuntary organ donation

If the natural course was not circumvented life would be continued

[Burgold]

Well the analogy in the OP is an apt analogy as far as rape is concerned: something you had no control over happens and suddenly you're faced with the choice of whether another living thing that's dependent on you for life support is separated from that support. You didn't ask for this violinist to be hooked up to you, and until the moment it happens you'd made no plans to have a violinist hooked up to you. It kinda falls apart if there were a logical sequence of event that you had control over that lead to you having another lifeforce dependent on you (like say, unprotected sex leading to a pregnancy). This scenario works because it's shocking and unexpected.

I agree. This is one of my problems with abortion. The destruction of potential. My other is simply that I consider life sacred. My gray area has to do with sentience and soul and that's where I can make an ethical/moral argument which allows for abortions.

In the case of the violinist, after nine months the "mother's" job is done... I'm guessing that means that the violinist is going to be adopted into a symphony immediately with no harm to mother or musician and all will lead a happy life. The problem with that is that reality is messier. What if the "violinist suffers severe disabilities from the attachment and detachment surgical procedures and suddenly the music world has no interest in him because he no longer has fine motor control? Do we care about him if suddenly he is no longer a world class violinist? What if after nine months of supporting the kidney functions of two adults the mother is so worn that she's reduced her lifespan by 20 years or even dies from surgical complications? What if the simple physical, emotional, and economic expenditures of feeding and caring and medical costs for the mother during the attachment are so onerous that she loses her job and becomes destitute?

o

[Larry]

You can request it....society on the other hand should demand justification

"It's my body, and I chose not to spend my life as someone else's life support system" isn't a good enough reason?

If the violinist's right to life includes the right to prevent me from being disconnected, does he have the right to demand that I be connected?

[SnyderShrugged]

"It's my body, and I chose not to spend my life as someone else's life support system" isn't a good enough reason?

If the violinist's right to life includes the right to prevent me from being disconnected, does he have the right to demand that I be connected?

Did the mother choose to have the sex that attached the violinist? If she didnt, then the vilolinist should be out of luck. If the mother chose to accept the risk of an attached violinist, then she should deal with those consequences

[Larry]

In the case of the violinist, after nine months the "mother's" job is done... I'm guessing that means that the violinist is going to be adopted into a symphony immediately with no harm to mother or musician and all will lead a happy life. The problem with that is that reality is messier. What if the "violinist suffers severe disabilities from the attachment and detachment surgical procedures and suddenly the music world has no interest in him because he no longer has fine motor control? Do we care about him if suddenly he is no longer a world class violinist? What if after nine months of supporting the kidney functions of two adults the mother is so worn that she's reduced her lifespan by 20 years or even dies from surgical complications? What if the simple physical, emotional, and economic expenditures of feeding and caring and medical costs for the mother during the attachment are so onerous that she loses her job and becomes destitute?

Actually, the essay goes into some of those alternates.

What if the violinist needs me for nine years, not nine months?

What if the violinist only needs my kidneys for an hour?

(The author's response is that it's irrelevant: If the violinist's right to life gives him (or society) the right to demand that I spend nine months as a life support system, then nine years, or a lifetime, are equally moral. And while, if the violinist only needs my kidneys for an hour, then society might well be justified in thinking badly of me if I'm not willing to voluntarily support him for that time, it still isn't his right to demand it. I'm just a bad person if I say "no".)

---------- Post added February-27th-2011 at 04:09 PM ----------

Did the mother choose to have the sex that attached the violinist? If she didnt, then the vilolinist should be out of luck. If the mother chose to accept the risk of an attached violinist, then she should deal with those consequences

I listed the author's response to that position back in post #13. (She had three.)

(My post #29 contains my own feelings on that subject.)

[twa]

Bur, where does our obligation as a society end?

Isn't there a correlation to letting citizens starve?...though this example seems closer to removing someones ability to eat.

I find it odd we are required to provide for the peoples basic needs in this country,yet support ending life so cavalierly

[Burgold]

I think the more interesting question is "What if after the procedure he is no longer a great violonist?" Does he matter? Was the mother's sacrifice and effort a waste? I mean it'd be a travesty to kill Rembrandt or Yo Yo Ma or Einstein, but is an equal tragedy to kill Joe, the Plumber (who's not even a plumber) or Jack, the Ripper?

[Larry]

I think the more interesting question is "What if after the procedure he is no longer a great violonist?" Does he matter? Was the mother's sacrifice and effort a waste? I mean it'd be a travesty to kill Rembrandt or Yo Yo Ma or Einstein, but is an equal tragedy to kill Joe, the Plumber (who's not even a plumber) or Jack, the Ripper?

I assume that tha's why she made her fictional patient a famous violinist: To deal with the "the fetus you kill might have become President" argument.

But I think we can all agree that morally, the profession of the other person is irrelevant. If Rembrandt has the right to demand my kidney, so does Joe the Plumber.

[Burgold]

Bur, where does our obligation as a society end?

Isn't there a correlation to letting citizens starve?...though this example seems closer to removing someones ability to eat.

I find it odd we are required to provide for the peoples basic needs in this country,yet support ending life so cavalierly

What I love about this argument is it becomes one of those odd times where the liberal becomes the conservative and the conservative becomes the liberal

The person who argues against universal healthcare or welfare... now argues that the mother must provide universal health care and welfare to the unborn or that society must do it for any unborn... up to the point when they are born and then all support mechanisms need to be thoroughly and completely cut off. Of course the pro-abortion side argues almost the opposite. That the parent has the right to kill the child, but if there is a child we have the ultimate shared responsibility to support and provide for the baby.

It's a most wonderful contradiction. It's dizzying. We humans are so ethically inconsistent it's amazing.

---------- Post added February-27th-2011 at 04:14 PM ----------

I assume that tha's why she made her fictional patient a famous violinist: To deal with the "the fetus you kill might have become President" argument.

But I think we can all agree that morally, the profession of the other person is irrelevant. If Rembrandt has the right to demand my kidney, so does Joe the Plumber.

Does Jack, the Ripper or the Unibomber?

[Thiebear]

So in your opinion, I cannot demand to be disconnected from the violinist?

In fact, the violinist has the right to demand to be connected to me? After all, it's his life, right?

If we're going to stay consistent: You were offered a good time, but you had to accept a little chance that the violinist would be attached.

When you woke up with the violinist you were just abiding by the small percentage coming true.

Everyone woman starts with the 'great time' with the small percentage of child.. Those with child were the small percentage.

Now they have to make a second choice based on the first poor one they made.

(again, not referring to the percentage of a percent cases).

[twa]

"It's my body, and I chose not to spend my life as someone else's life support system" isn't a good enough reason?

If the violinist's right to life includes the right to prevent me from being disconnected, does he have the right to demand that I be connected?

Am I not other's life support system as a taxpayer?

=-

funny we have no problem demanding support from fathers

[jnhay]

What does the whole adoption situation look like these days? If someone gets pregnant, is it easy as signing a couple papers to get the child adopted?

[techboy]

I don't know why you haven't heard this argument before, Larry. I know I've seen it used here, I think by Destino.

There are, however, three fatal flaws to the analogy, going from least to most important.

1. As already mentioned, in 99% of cases, pregnancy involves the complicity and responsibility of the mother. She has reason to believe that pregnancy might be the result of her actions, yet she takes the action anyway. There's no reasonable expectation of being kidnapped and surgically attached to a violinist when one wakes up.

2. More tellingly, the argument ignores the very real difference between positive rights, which are the rights to goods or services, and negative rights, which are the rights to noninterference.

Let's suppose I have bad kidneys, and I'm going to die, and you have a perfect match (no surgical attachment to cloud the issue). Very few would argue that I have the positive right to one of your kidneys. If you refuse to give one to me, I will die, but you have not murdered me. I have no positive right to your kidney.

Now imagine, on the other hand, that you also need a kidney, and you take the one that I was about to legally receive, for yourself. You have murdered me, because you have violated my negative right not to be interfered with.

In the situation proposed by the analogy, you didn't cause the musician's condition, and witholding your services as spare kidney isn't what kills him... it's his disease.

In an abortion, however, the fetus is not sick. If left uninterefered with, it will be born, and live.

Abortion, through poison or cutting or other physical attack, actively kills the fetus. It's not like an abortion involves delivering the fetus and then leaving it to die on its own, which would be the true parallel, and brings me to point 3 in a moment, and neither do we see that in the analogy, where we should cut up the violinist into shards or actively poison him, to make the parallel to abortion a true one.

3. Most importantly, as hinted by the difference above (leaving a fetus to die on the table), this analogy takes us to a place we really don't want to go, because the "chains" on a mother (or father) don't cease to exist when the fetus is born, legally or morally.

When a mother has a baby, she becomes legally responsible for the child's welfare until he turns 18, no matter how inconvenient this might be. If she wants to go out of town for a few days, but can't find appropriate child care, she doesn't get to leave her 2 year old son at home to fend for himself.

If she only has enough money for either cigarettes or baby formula, she doesn't (legally) get to buy the cigarettes, because withdrawl symptoms would be uncomfortable.

This isn't limited to the mother, either. If a father doesn't want to be bothered with a child, he still must pay child support. That can be an inconvenience, I'd say.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. The analogy asks us to agree that the mother has the right to avoid inconvenience, even if it ends the life of another, but in reality, that inconvenience last for 18 years after birth, and we rightly recoil in horror at the thought that the mother has the right to end the life of a child then.

Don't believe me? I have two words for you.

Susan Smith.

[Prosperity]

Techboy, I'm pretty sure parents can put their kids up for adoption. It's not like the parental responsibilities are interminable before the child becomes an adult. Parents can end them earlier... course they have to terminate the responsobilities first before they can neglect them.

OK, so my Intro to Ethics class is spending two weeks on abortion, now.

Now, I figured that there hadn't been any new arguments on this issue in the last 20 years. But one of our required readings (Judith Thompson: A Defense of Abortion) had an analogy I'd never seen argued before.

(I'm going to try to paraphrase, both to make things shorter and to avoid possible copyright problems.)

You awake one morning, and discover that your back has been surgically attached to the back of someone else. A nearby nurse explains:

The person you're attached to is a world famous violinist. And he has a medical condition which has caused the complete failure of his kidneys. The Association of Music Fans scoured the world, and you are the only person who is a genetic match.

If the violinist is disconnected from you, then he will die. (Unless the two of you remain joined, back to back, for nine months, at which time the disease will have passed, and his kidneys will once again sustain him.)

Do you have the right to demand that he die, so that you can have your body back?

----------

Yeah, it's a really hokey, contrived, analogy. (And yes, I know that dialysis machines exist. But let's pretend that there's some reason why that won't work.)

(And I'll admit that I've only read the first page of the essay, so far.)

But the author's point is: Even if we create a situation in which it is impossible to argue that the "other life" is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a fully functional human, endowed with every Constitutional protection . . .

Do you have the right to chose not to have your body function as somebody else's life support system? Even if that other person will die without your support?

In this situation neither person has any right to kill the other, unless one of them caused the parasitic situation... then I think it gets a bit murkier

it's not a very good analogy, but it gets a point across.

[techboy]

Techboy, I'm pretty sure parents can put their kids up for adoption.

Yes, if they find an alternate, equally safe situation for the child, they can do that.

The analogy specifically sidesteps this option by asserting that you are the only person in the entire world that is a genetic match, so you can't take an equivalent action, such as finding another person that's willing to be surgically attached to the violinist for 9 months.

Adoption has little relevance here.

[Destino]

I don't know why you haven't heard this argument before, Larry. I know I've seen it used here, I think by Destino.

Kidney argument is mine, never even considered someone being sewn to your back.

1. As already mentioned, in 99% of cases, pregnancy involves the complicity and responsibility of the mother. She has reason to believe that pregnancy might be the result of her actions, yet she takes the action anyway. There's no reasonable expectation of being kidnapped and surgically attached to a violinist when one wakes up.

Interesting trick you played here. This argument is most relevant to cases of insest (with a minor) or rape as he "woke up" with a surprise that was not his own doing. You've transferred the argument to abortion as birth control to avoid the moral parallels. Smart move but I'm not letting you do it. The example constitutes a invasion of the body and we should stay in that area for this particular argument.

2. More tellingly, the argument ignores the very real difference between positive rights, which are the rights to goods or services, and negative rights, which are the rights to noninterference.

Which is only relevant because of your attempt to shift the discourse to birth control. In the case of rape or incest the pregnant female would have had her negative rights violated first creating the situation. Thus if I stole your kidney (but you still had another) and put it in someone else, would you be right to take it back, killing him in the process. Easy answer if your other kidney is 100% good and you can live just fine... harder if the loss of the kidney will cost you tremendous expense and destroy or set back your career. After all why should your goals and life be put on the back burner because someone decided to invade your body?

3. Most importantly, as hinted by the difference above (leaving a fetus to die on the table), this analogy takes us to a place we really don't want to go, because the "chains" on a mother (or father) don't cease to exist when the fetus is born, legally or morally.

Unless of course you put the baby up for adoption or take advantage of safe haven laws that allows people to abandon their babies legally and break those chains. This part of your argument is altogether irrelevant anyway so I'm pointing those two escape options out for conversations sake.

[Prosperity]

Yes, if they find an alternate, equally safe situation for the child, they can do that.

The analogy specifically sidesteps this option by asserting that you are the only person in the entire world that is a genetic match, so you can't take an equivalent action, such as finding another person that's willing to be surgically attached to the violinist for 9 months.

Adoption has little relevance here.

they can just drop them off next to a fire department (or other State agency)

an equally safe alternative is not required

this is relevant because it means we allow parents that don't want to raise their children to abandon their parental responsibilities (just in an orderly way)