Results 1 to 6 of 6
Anti-Abortion Arguments regarding concept of "use"
Recently, in a discussion on abortion, I argued that Abortion should always be allowed at every stage of pregnancy, because the fetus is using the woman's body for its own survival, and, because no organism has the right to use a person's body without the consent of that person, every woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy, at any time, if she wishes, even if the fetus can feel pain, or possess any other biological attribute.
In response, the person in question argued that this ethical premise can lead to other consequences: they suggested that it also gave the woman the right to kill a baby once it had exited from her womb, since it was also using her, and dependent upon her, albeit in an indirect way, economically, as a woman must care for the baby and provide it with nutrition. He challenged me to support this right (the right to kill a baby) which apparently was a logical extension of my ethical premise for abortion. I argued in reply that this kind of "use" is not the same as the "use" which exists during a pregnancy, since the organism is no longer occupying a person's body, and so, if a woman were to kill a baby, that would be unethical, whereas abortion is not - and so the comparison is not applicable. In the case of a baby, the organism is not dependent on a specific individual - anyone, including the state, can take care of a child, and so it would, again, not be ethical to kill a baby, once it has exited from the womb.
Is there any better reply that can be made?
The same individual also argued, attacking my theme of "use" and the term "parasite" (which I used to refer to a fetus) that people on life support machines are also using the resources of society and so could be considered parasitic- and so, apparently, we should be able to terminate their lives as well. I was taken aback by this argument, and so replied that yes, if the community decided that such a person should be killed, it would be ethical to do so.
Did I take the right approach here - i.e. Should we as socialists support the right of the community to terminate the lives of people in PVS - or was the comparison between this and abortion a false comparison? If so, how?
Fantasy is a very useful rhetorical technique.
You don't have any qualms about outright lying, do you?
You are basically tring to rally fundamental pro-choice premises against my arguments, which depend on pro-choice premises.
This is very dishonest.
Last edited by Xiao Banfa; 12th March 2008 at 11:07.
XB, I'm talking about a discussion I had in the common room at school today - you grossly overestimate your importance in my life.
The point is, that the women can give the child away when its born. Thus she has two choices, with equal gain for her (not burdened by the child) but different result for the child. Of course she would not be allowed to kill the child as she has an equally effective choice. When the child is inside of her, there is no alternative to abortion.
You cannot equate society and an idividual. "Societies resources" are also the resources of the person relying on life support. Human beings are PART of the society, not and outside influence. Also for an advanced society, keeping their population alive is not much of an effort, not even comparable to having to invest huge amounts of time and money into a child or the damage done to a womens body from giving birth.
Just to let you know, people are already terminated in PVS if their families or the state decide that is the best option. At least here in Ireland, which is pretty conservative.
I'll reply more later.
Im starting to think wether there will ever be an answer to is abortion right or wrong as the original stated arguement above was that if the baby os relying on the mother to live the mother has the right to do what she wants this may seem perfectly logical not all people are robots some people do have emotions
