An abortion analogy

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is pro abortion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am...

population control.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Oh and in case anyone cares what I really think...

I don't care.

[rollyourown]

BCPV, your linked refutation of Thomson isn't. In fact, it seriously misrepresents her arguments and her conclusions. Some points in passing:

From your link: " Both Thompson and McDonagh treat the child—the woman's own daughter or son--like an invading stranger intent on doing harm. They make the mother/child union into a host/predator relationship."

This is simply false of Thomson. Read the article (A Defense of Abortion).

From Your Link: "A child is not an invader, though, a parasite living off his mother. A mother's womb is the baby's natural environment. Eileen McDonagh wants us to believe that the child growing inside of a woman is trespassing. One trespasses when he's not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there."

Thomson, at least, has a quite lengthy discussion of property rights. The baby 'belongs' in the mother's womb, regardless of the mother's wishes, only if the baby has a property right to the womb; otherwise the baby's presence is a trespass. On Thomson's analysis there is no such right unless it is explicitly transfered. Her case is supported by at least two compelling arguments. Your link neither addresses them nor offers a counter-argument to her position.

And most crucially, from your link:
"Thompson ignores a second important distinction. In the violinist illustration, the woman might be justified withholding life-giving treatment from the musician under these circumstances. Abortion, though, is not merely withholding treatment. It is actively taking another human being's life through poisoning or dismemberment. A more accurate parallel with abortion would be to crush the violinist or cut him into pieces before unplugging him."

What Thomson argues for, explicitly, is not the right to secure the death of a fetus, but rather the right deprive it of the use of your own property (namely one's body). Killing by withholding that to which you have a right but the other does not is always just (though not always morally permissible); killing in order to withhold is not always just; it is so under two circumstances, one of them being that active killing, killing in order to withhold, is just if withholding will also kill. For non-viable fetuses, abortion (an active killing) and pre-term (say, <25 weeks) delivery both eventuate in the death of the fetus, and the latter is NOT an active killing. Hence both are just ['just' here means 'doesn't violate any rights; it is not to be equated with 'is moral', since just actions may immorally violate duties of beneficence].

Finally, from your link:
" The violinist analogy suggests that a mother has no more responsibility for the welfare of her child than she has to a total stranger."

The violinst analogy does not concern 'responsiblity' at all, but rather what the right to life amounts to. Thomson addresses questions of responsibility explicity, and she does so in terms of property rights, but using different arguments. Her arguments are not described in your link, never mind rebutted, and her position is not challenged, merely denied.

Thomson's position is open to challenge in at least two distinct ways (I think neither works, but they are not anyway outright stupid), but your link develops neither of them. Instead, it relies essentially on misrepresenting Thomson's case, and her posiiton. Hence, it is not a refutation. You do yourself an intellectual disservice if you rely on it without thinking through her actual arguments carefully. You do others a disservice if you represent the linked article as a refutation of Thomson's case.

Regards,
Bruce

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
From your link: " Both Thompson and McDonagh treat the child—the woman's own daughter or son--like an invading stranger intent on doing harm. They make the mother/child union into a host/predator relationship."

This is simply false of Thomson. Read the article (A Defense of Abortion).

[/ QUOTE ]
This was more true of McDonagh, less true of Thomson.

[ QUOTE ]
What Thomson argues for, explicitly, is not the right to secure the death of a fetus, but rather the right deprive it of the use of your own property (namely one's body).

[/ QUOTE ]
This is possible in the Violinist scenario as you just need to be unhooked from the Violnist. With abortion, the fetus is actually dismembered or poisoned to death. If in the future, medical technology advances to where we can "unhook" the fetus from its mother without killing it, you'll have a point. Until then, the methods used in abortions would be are murderous.

And no, you don't have the right to actively kill someone even if withholding treatment would cause their death. One is taking their life, the other is letting them die. You have the right to live, but not the right to be kept alive.

[rollyourown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From your link: " Both Thompson and McDonagh treat the child—the woman's own daughter or son--like an invading stranger intent on doing harm. They make the mother/child union into a host/predator relationship."

This is simply false of Thomson. Read the article (A Defense of Abortion).

[/ QUOTE ]

This was more true of McDonagh, less true of Thomson.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not true at all of Thomson.

[ QUOTE ]
This is possible in the Violinist scenario as you just need to be unhooked from the Violnist. With abortion, the fetus is actually dismembered or poisoned to death. If in the future, medical technology advances to where we can "unhook" the fetus from its mother without killing it, you'll have a point. Until then, the methods used in abortions would be are murderous.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is confused. The point of the violist example is that rights to life are not violated by killings-by-withholding when the victim has no right to that which is withheld. Pre-term (<26wks) deliveries are killings by withholding. Hence they do not violate fetal rights to life unless the fetus has a property right to use of the mother's body. So minimally, pre-term deliveries aren't murder. Second, the presumption is that when withholding is just and constitutes a passive killing, killing in order to withhold is also just. Hence abortion will be just as well, absent a fetal property right to the mother's body. The presumption may be wrong, but it can't simply be assumed away. Neither you nor the linked article offer any challenge to it; so far there is no 'refutation' in sight.

Regards,
Bruce

[ElaineMonster]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a very commonly used analogy, and most hardcore anti-abortionists will claim that you cannot remove yourself in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right here.
[ QUOTE ]
However, an interesting corrolary, is suppose a condition of being saved by this machine is to consent to a random drawing when you are healthy...." "So suppose you join a group that allows you to save someone else's fetus. You agree to give up 9 months of your life if chosen at random. You get picked. I see no rational argument for getting out of your own choice here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting analogy because something similar actually exists. Adoptions can be done this way. People who want to adopt can put themselves in a pool of candidates. When they are chosen (random or not) by a mother-to-be or by the agency, they still DO have the option to refuse to adopt the child. They can decide not to adopt right then and there or even a few months later, however long it takes to make the adoption legally permanent (which, obviously, depends on the type of adoption).

Or, you can sign up to donate bone marrow. Then when they call you and say they have a match, you CAN refuse.

So, you see, consent to one activity is not necessarily consent to consequential activities. Consent to sex is NOT the same as consent to maternity.

[ElaineMonster]

Let's make the analogy a little bit more real.

[ QUOTE ]
A short time ago, a new, previously uncategorized terminal disease was discovered ...[the terminal disease is only spread by women.]
A law has been passed by the government that sets up a [somewhat] random process of selection of potential host healers. [Not all healthy persons can be hosts; only men can be hosts. The lottery is random, but chances of having your name drawn increase the more often you participate in certain activities. Shaking hands with women while wearing gloves increases your chance by 0.0005% for each handshake. Shaking hands with women with bare hands increases your chance by 5% for each handshake.] The law [which was written and enforced by women] states that if you are randomly selected to be a host healer, you must give up your life as you know it for 9 months, be hooked up to the infected person, and have your life be dictated by that person's needs. [However, there are a few benefits. You might actually enjoy spending time with the sick person. You could become life-long friends. Also, your penis might engorge and become more attractive (however, it is also sore all the time and it spontaneously spews out milky stuff towards the 8th month). And some people will do nice things for you, like open doors and carry your groceries. But overall, the care for this other person is a burden, that if you don't like the person, doesn't feel "worth it."]


[/ QUOTE ]

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So, you see, consent to one activity is not necessarily consent to consequential activities. Consent to sex is NOT the same as consent to maternity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maternity is a possible consequence of sex, not a seperate activity.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, you see, consent to one activity is not necessarily consent to consequential activities. Consent to sex is NOT the same as consent to maternity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maternity is a possible consequence of sex, not a seperate activity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, since you can get an abortion.

[BCPVP]

Two things:
1) Terminal diseases are terminal. Fatal. Hooking someone up to that person will do nothing.
2) Even if it could do something, you don't have a right to be kept alive by others, but you do have the right to not be unjustly killed.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
So, you see, consent to one activity is not necessarily consent to consequential activities. Consent to sex is NOT the same as consent to maternity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I consent to being hit with an axe without consenting to bleeding?

Clearly, these axes are defective and dangerous.