Posts
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Steve Phillips molds an argument in defense of abortion by creating a situation where someone is plugged into a dieing violinist in order to keep the violinist’s kidneys functional, thus keeping him alive. However, that person is only plugged into the violinist because an orchestra that wants the violinist alive kidnapped them against their will. This situation attempts to parallel what happens to a female when she is impregnated without her consent (raped). The kidnapped person and an impregnated rape victim face a dilemma: unplug their body from the other person and concede the death of the other person (have an abortion) or stay plugged into the other person, which would keep them alive (continue with pregnancy).
Comparing a fetus to a living human being is a grossly weak analogy. Thomson weakens her argument because a fetus depends more on the mother than the violinist does on the kidnapped person. A fetus relies entirely on someone else to survive and potentially become a human being. The violinist is a living human being whose health has failed him and now relies on someone else to avoid death. A fetus relies completely on someone else to even be given the chance to survive autonomously while a human being relies on someone else only to delay death. Someone who is against abortion would argue that we have a greater moral responsibility for the fetus than the violinist.
Let’s assume you wake up on morning to have a small puppy on your front doorstep. This puppy’s eyes have not yet opened; it looks to be near death, it does not know where to find water nor food for survival. Now let’s assume there is an older dog digging through your trash on your back doorstep. If you take the trash from the dog the dog may die from starvation. Under the violinist argument we would hold the same moral responsibility for the puppy to the grown dog. I feel this argument is weak in this regard as people will disregard it in lieu of feeling a fetus depends on its mother more than the violinist depends on a person.
The People Seed
Phillips’ people seed analogy is an adequate analogy in defense of abortion. The analogy does not limit itself to a situation in which a woman is impregnated by rape like many pro-abortion arguments tend to do. The analogy questions whether one is morally obligated to see to the development of a people seed (a fetus) that happens to fly into one’s apartment window (a female body). Even if the apartment owner freely knows the risk of a possible people seed flying into the window (getting pregnant) but is addicted to natural breeze and refuses to close the window (not using contraception) does she hold a moral obligation to see to development of the people seed because she knew the possibility it may happen?
Let’s say a female freely has sex without the use of birth control, but she does not want a child. Should she be obligated to live with the burden of childbirth simply because she pursued self-happiness, even though she has the option to abort the birth? Unprotected sex is an action that brings her happiness, yet the action has a consequence that may bring about undesired consequences. I feel a person’s personal rights to the life they want to lead holds no moral substance as long as it does not affect the rights of another living human being. Abortion is therefore morally neutral.
One who opposes abortion would argue that abortion does not affect only the mother, but also the fetus and the father. I simply do not view a fetus as a human being, thus cannot acknowledge that a fetus has a right to life. I cannot perfectly prove this argument for someone who views a fetus with the same rights as a living human being. That leaves us with only one other person directly affected by the abortion, that is a father who in opposition of aborting a child. I have developed an answer to this objection.
Jack's Personal Property Argument
A fetus is attached within a woman’s body. I argue that anything that is directly attached to a person’s body is their personal property. A fetus is not a human being, therefore a fetus can be “owned” by a human being. Therefore, a fetus is the personal property of the impregnated female. Either destroying your own personal property is morally permissible or immoral. Destroying personal property has no moral value; it is morally neutral. Therefore a person has the right to destroy their personal property. So, a mother has the right to destroy her own fetus and that action is morally neutral.
Let’s assume a man, Bob, has an ulcer growing within his stomach. Bob loves chicken wings that his wife makes him every day for lunch and the constant hot sauce in his stomach caused the ulcer to appear. The doctor informs Bob this ulcer will cause him great pain for next nine months and he may miss work, not be able to do many things he enjoys, and could possibly get very ill or even die from this ulcer. The doctor also tells Bob that this ulcer has a special cell on it that in nine months will multiply into a cell that could bring about a human life. Bob elects to have the ulcer removed because he declares that it is his ulcer and he can remove it if he wants to, it his right to do with his ulcer as he sees fit. That ulcer is Bob’s personal property and he has the right to destroy his ulcer just as he has the right to spit out his saliva.
Bob’s wife is upset with this decision. She says that she has a right to decide what happens with the ulcer because she made the chicken wings that Bob ate. She feels that cell has the prospect of becoming a human being and she does not want Bob to destroy it. However, Bob and Bob alone reserves the right to determine what is best for himself. Simply because a fetus may become a human being within a female’s body, does not mean her right to personal property ceases to exist.
Ultimately, Thomson’s people seed argument is the only one in which I view as a legitimate defense of abortion. Morality in respect to time I feel is a weak argument as well as the violinist argument mentioned earlier in this essay. We cannot allow religious beliefs and/or false interpretations of a human being to trump individual rights. To ban a morally neutral action would be immoral. To force an impregnated woman to continue with pregnancy is no different than forcing an individual to become a slave.
2010 MLB Predictions (or facts)...
WS Champ - Mariners
NL Champ - Giants
AL East - Yankees
NL East - Phillies
AL Cent - White Sox
NL Cent - Cardinals
AL West - Mariners
NL West - Giants
AL WC - Rays
NL WC - Braves
AL MVP - Ichiro Suzuki
NL MVP - Roy Halladay
AL Cy - Jake Peavy
NL Cy - Roy Halladay
AL Manager - Don Wakamatsu
NL Manager - Bobby Cox
AL Comeback - Chad Cordero
NL Comeback - Troy Glaus
