Against Abortion
P1: The development of a human being from the point of conception through birth into childhood is continuous.
C1: To draw a line anywhere in this development is to draw it arbitrarily.
Ø NB: At this point, Thomson advances a version of the argument which is not necessarily the only version available.
Thomson’s version
P2: An arbitrary choice is a choice for which in the nature of things, no good reason can be given
C2: We should not make arbitrary choices (P2)
C3: We should not draw a line anywhere in the development of a human being from the point of conception through birth into childhood (C1, C2)
C4: We had better say that a foetus is a human being, a person, from the point of conception. (C3)
Counterargument via Counterexample
P1: The development of an acorn into an oak tree is continuous
C1: To draw a line anywhere in this development is to draw it arbitrarily. (P1)
P2: The path of development of an acorn is similar to that of a foetus
P3: It does not follow from P2 that we had better say that an acorn is an oak tree
C2: It does not follow that we had better say that a foetus is a person from the point of conception (P2, P3)
Ø But has Thomson deliberately presented a weak version of the argument against abortion?
Stronger version of Argument against Abortion
P1: The development of a human being from the point of conception through birth into childhood is continuous.
C1: To draw a line anywhere in this development is to draw it arbitrarily.
P2: To define what constitutes a person is important and has important ramifications
P3: We should not decide anything that is important arbitrarily.
C2: We had better say that the foetus is a person from the point of conception. (P2, P3)
Ø Does the addition of P2 make the argument stronger now and harder to resist? Why?
In any case, Thomson, as we have seen, does not rely on such a method to try and argue for abortion.
Indeed, what she has done is to be charitable and accommodates the argument against abortion, i.e. that she allows the argument that a foetus is a person from the point of conception to pass through.
Still, she seems to be able to put forth a convincing case for abortion, although she has had to weaken her case such that it is morally permissible (as opposed to morally laudatory) only for certain types of abortion and not all types.
This is what usually happens when you accommodate your opponent’s argument. But it doesn’t matter if your argument is not as strong, extreme and absolute as you had initially thought it would be. What is more important is whether your argument, at the end of the day, is logical and true.
Thomson’s question
Does it follow from the premise that a foetus is a person from the point of conception that we should never allow abortion?
Possible Argument against Abortion
C2: We had better say that the foetus is a person from the point of conception. (P2, P3)
P4: Every person has a right to life
C3: The foetus has a right to life (P4)
P5: No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body
P6: A person’s right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body
C4: A person’s right to life outweighs a mother’s right to her body (P5, P6)
C5: A foetus may not be killed
P7: Abortion is to kill a foetus
C6: Abortion denies the right to life of a foetus (P7)
P8: We should not do anything that denies the right to life of any person
C7: We should not perform abortion (P8, C6)
Thomson then goes on to present a thought experiment to show that this argument is flawed.
Thought Experiment: World famous Violinist
P1: All persons have a right to life
P2: The right to life outweighs your right to your body
C1: You cannot be unplugged from the violinist
Counterargument
P1: You did not consent to having the violinist hooked up to you
P2: The violinist has no relation to you such that you have a duty towards him
P3: If you did not consent to him being hooked up to you and you have no duty towards him, then you have no obligation to stay hooked up to him
C1: You have no obligation to stay hooked up to him (P1, P2, P3)
P4: To bear a baby is like to be hooked up to the violinist
C2: You have no obligation to bear a baby (C1, C2)
Ø Note that Thomson does talk about rape victims – But as she pointed out, it sounds weird that your right to life should depend on whether you are the product of rape or not.
Extreme View Against Abortion (impermissible even to save mother’s life)
Scenario: Either the mother lives or the foetus lives (and not both)
P1: To abort is to directly kill the foetus
P2: To not do anything to save the mother is simply to let her die
P3: The foetus is innocent, has committed no crime and is not aiming at his mother’s death.
4 possible P4
P4a: Directly killing a person is always and absolutely impermissible
P4b: Directly killing an innocent person is murder and murder is always and absolutely impermissible
P4c: One’s duty to refrain from directly killing an innocent person is more stringent than one’s duty to keep a person from dying
P4d: If one’s only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one must prefer letting the person die
C1: We should not abort even in the case when the mother’s life is at stake.
Thomson: P4a – P4d are all false
P4b – Can’t be murder if the mother performs an abortion on herself to save her life
Focus now shifts to Third Party Intervention
Why? Because there’s not much a mother can safely do to abort herself.
Thus, according to Thomson, “the question asked is what a third party may do, and what the mother may do, if it is mentioned at all, is deduced, almost as an afterthought, from what it is concluded that third parties do.
Objection!
P1: To treat the mother in such a manner is to treat her as an afterthought
P2: To treat someone as an afterthought is not to treat her as an end in herself
P3: A person is an end in herself
C1: To treat someone as an afterthought is to deny them the status of a person (P2, P3)
C2: To treat the mother in such a manner is to deny her the status of a person (P1, C1)
Thought Experiment: Tiny house, Giant Child
Scenario: Either we save the mother by doing something to stop the child growing or we allow the child to continue growing and eventually crush the mother to death.
P1: It is understandable that a bystander cannot choose between the mother and the child
Q: Does it then follow that a mother can do nothing to save her own life?
Thomson: No! You can do something to save your own life! You don’t have to wait passively for the child to crush you to death.
Argument?
P1: Everyone has the right to self-defense, including a mother
P2: To attack the child and stop it from growing, even if it results in the death of the child, is to act in self-defense
C1: The mother has the right to attack the child and stop it from growing, even if it results in the death of the child.
But! As Thomson points out, there are limits to this argument: you do not have the right to do absolutely anything to save your life.
Claim: If someone threatens you with death unless you torture someone else to death, I think you have not the right, even to save your life, to do so.
P1: The right to self-defense does not include the right to do anything whatever to save your life
C1: There are certain things you cannot do in order to save your life (P1)
P2: To torture someone is an atrocious act, one worse than killing the person who is threatening you
P3: The things you cannot do in order to save your life are atrocious acts, ones worse than killing the person who is threatening you
C2: The right to self-defense does not give you the right to torture someone in order to save your life (C1, P2, P3)
The question to ask here is WHY?
Thomson simply states it, assuming that it is an obvious argument that anyone would agree with. But is it really such an intuitively right argument?
What is involved in the Right to Self-Defense? Or rather, what kind of response is allowed in the Right to Self-D?
According to Law, a Proportionate response to the threat you face. So, a modified version of Thomson’s argument might go like this:
P1: The right to self-defense does not include the right to do anything whatever to save your life
P2: A sanctioned response is one that is proportionate to the threat you face.
C1: There are certain things you cannot do in order to save your life, i.e. that your response to the threat you face must be proportionate (P1)
P2: To torture someone is always and everywhere a disproportionate response
C2: The right to self-defense does not give you the right to torture someone in order to save your life (P2)
But what makes P2 true? Can P2 be disputed? Or is it simply trivially true?
Think
New Twist in the Argument
Thomson: Is the Right to Life as unproblematic as we think it is?
Thought Experiment: Henry Fonda
Scenario: Only Henry Fonda’s touch can save you
P1: You have a right to life
P2: Only Henry Fonda’s touch can save you
P3: Henry Fonda is in a far-off country
C1: It would be nice if he can come to save you (P1, P2, P3)
P4: To be nice to someone is not the same as to be obliged to do something for someone.
C2: Henry Fonda has no duty to come to save you even though it would be nice of him to save you (C1, C4)
P5: If it is not a duty to do X in order to save your life, then it is not under your right to life
P6: Henry Fonda has no duty to come to save you (C2)
C3: For Henry Fonda to come to save you is not under your right to life.
(P5, P6)
P7: To use another person’s body continually for a long period of time is similar to Henry Fonda coming down to save you
C4: Having the right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body – even if one needs it for life itself. (C3, P7)
C5: You can unplug the violinist from you, resulting in his death, and it would not be an unjust act. (C4)
C6: The right to life does not consist in the right to be killed (C5)
Ø So what does the right to life consists of if not the right not to be killed?
Thomson: the right not to be killed unjustly
Argument of Unjust Killing
P1: If you do not kill him unjustly, then you are not violating his right to life
P2: You are not killing him unjustly
C1: You are not violating his right to life (P1, P2)
Ø Implications of this argument?
Thomson: “it is by no means enough to show that the foetus is a person and thus has a right to life – we need to be shown also that killing the foetus violates its right to life, i.e. that abortion is unjust killing.”
P1: The relationship between Henry Fonda and you is similar to the relationship between a mother and her baby where the mother did not choose to have the baby in the first place and her life is at stake.
P2: The foetus’ right to life does not consist in not being killed but in being killed unjustly
C1: The mother does not violate the foetus’ right to life by abortion. (P1, P2)
Voluntarily calling it into existence VS Involuntary Impregnation
P1: The foetus has the right to the mother’s body if it was voluntarily called into existence by the mother
P2: To abort the foetus in such a situation is to violate its right to the mother’s body
C1: Abortion in such a circumstance is to kill the foetus unjustly (P1, P2)
P3: The foetus has no right to the mother’s body if it was not voluntarily called into existence by the mother
P4: To abort the foetus in such a sitation is not to violate its right to the mother’s body
C2: Abortion in such circumstance is not to kill the foetus unjustly (P3, P4)
Minimally Decent Argument
P1: There are cases in which it would be morally indecent to detach a person from your body at the cost of his life
P2: One such case is when it is only slightly inconvenient for you to keep him alive
C1: In such cases, you would be indecent if you were to unplug the person from your body (P1, P2)
Ø Does it follow then that if it is decent for you to act in such a manner that the person has a right to your body?
Thought-Experiment: Box of Chocs
Scenario: One box of chocs, two brothers. Box given to elder. Elder just eats, refuses to give to younger who pleads.
P1: The elder has a right to the box of chocs
P2: The younger has no right to the box of chocs
C1: The elder is not obliged to share the box of chocs with the younger (P1, P2)
C2: It would be decent of the elder to share his box of chocs with the younger and not a duty (C1)
Argument with Henry Fonda Part Deux
P1: Henry Fonda is just next door
P2: A touch of his hand on my fevered brow would save me
C1: He is obliged to come and save me (P1, P2)
Objection!
Thomson: How can it be that I have a right to him saving me just because he is now nearer when I did not enjoy the right earlier because he was further away?
Conclusion: To be decent is not the same as to fulfill one’s duty
Thomson’s Argument: Good VS Minimally Decent Samaritan
P1: Nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive.
P2: To save another’s life when it is only a slight inconvenience on you is to be minimally decent
P3: To save another’s life when it is a large sacrifice on your part is to be a Good Samaritan
C1: Nobody is morally bound to be a Good Samaritan (P1, P2, P3)
C2: Abortion, in some cases, would be not be minimally decent (P2)
P4: We should at least be minimally decent
C3: Abortion, in some cases, should not be performed (C2, P4)
No comments:
Post a Comment