For the purposes of discussion, I had an idea to use an analogy of a comatose patient to explore whether fetuses count as actual human beings or just potential human beings. Granted, the idea is kind of rough so I just wanted to see how it would work in practice.
If you answered that the comatose patient should be kept alive, then presumably you should answer that a fetus should be kept alive as well. As a comatose patient who is amnesiac and without attachment, John Doe is basically like a fetus in the following ways: (i) he has approximately the same limited cognitive functioning more or less (ii) he has no attachments to anyone, (iii) he has no memory of experiences (iv) and if someone killed him, he presumably would not feel much pain.
Perhaps the real issue with abortion are the costs that are imposed on the pregnant woman. If these costs are dealt with, perhaps the issue of aborting fetuses may not be necessary. What if people were legally required to treat pregnant women no different from other women? That is, what if a person could be prosecuted for child abuse if he/she discriminated against a pregnant woman, because it would start a chain of events that would lead to abortion?
What do you think?
Two things that came to mind when reading this:
ReplyDelete1. one could argue that unlike John Doe, fetuses do have an attachment to someone, its mother, whether or not the fetus is aware of it. The case differs because with John Doe, he can continue to survive without familial attachments (with the help of the hospital of course), but a fetus cannot.
2. Additionally, a fetus is certainly an organism, but is not necessarily a person. So even if I thought that Mr. Doe should be kept alive, I could say the fetus can be aborted because it is only an organism. The question really comes down to what stage of fetal development you are discussing and the associated implications of personhood, rights, etc.
I do think the costs imposed on pregnant women is an interesting and important factor to consider!
--Stacey
A few things come to mind when I read the above comment,
ReplyDelete1. In your first point where you say "fetuses do have an attachment to someone, its mother," the case does not necessarily differ from John Doe. As explained above a comatose patient is one in which the hospital does not know the identity. Therefore, this person does in fact, have attachments they are just not known. Also, a person who is in a coma is dependent on the attachments in which the hospital is giving them therefore, once again, it does not necessarily differ from a fetus.
2. A fetus is a human being once it comes into being(after fertilization). Of course, in the philosophical sense there seems to be a disconnect from when a human being enters personhood. And as discussed in class, this time is pretty much a guess, with know factual evidence supporting this difference. In other words, it seems to be a more logical argument to believe a human being comes in to personhood at just the very same time.
main point,
Although I have my own views on such a controversial topic in modern culture I think there is only one position I can truly stand behind. That it is not up to me, or law, or anyone as to what a female should choose to do. Each case has its own circumstances, and truly, abortion shouldn't have a universal agreement or disagreement.
I found this argument to be an interesting one on a controversial topic. I however agree with Stacey - the relevant difference is that unlike John Doe, the fetus is attached to someone, and that it is an important difference. It's not a perfect analogy, but it does raise some interesting points. Stacy also raised another point that a fetus not necessarily a person. Responding to Corey, Judith Jarvis Thompson argued that even if the fetus is a person and has a right to life, abortion is morally permissible because the woman has the right to her own body and the right to make her own decisions.
ReplyDeletemain point, I do agree with Corey: each case is different, and we can't apply such a general approach of thinking and expect it to be sound.
A few thoughts here. I think “the human” is quite different from “the potential human”. A same action on those two can have a huge difference in terms of the moral status. The potential human means it is not literally a human (like the worm is to butterfly). It seems to me that a striking difference between a fetus and a human is whether they can breathe without the help of the umbilical cord. A fetus, before it is born, is just like a benign tumor. They both live relying on the maternal, cannot breathe and have no intelligence and consciousness. I guess the reason why people think the fetus is different is because they know this would become their child, a human who is attached to them. However, again, this can only happen after this fetus is born to be an infant. I understand their affection to this, but it doesn’t change the fact. Another analogy is that the prohibition that teenagers are not allowed to drink wine. Does any one think it makes sense if a teenager argues that he can drink wine because he will become an adult after 10 years? Hence, I think we should only consider the effects of abortion on the women.
ReplyDeleteThis entire issue of abortion is indeed a controversial and interesting one. On one hand there is the fetus itself, on the other hand, there is rights of the pregnant woman- both of which can have different impacts on the moral status of abortion.
ReplyDeleteI would like to bring forward the amended version of J.J. Thompson's analogy by Jane English. English asks you to imagine that you go out at night, knowing that you will be knocked unconscious and get hooked up to a famous violinist who must depend on you for life support for the next nine months. You would still be entitled to unhook yourself, even it leads to the death of the violinist. By analogy, a pregnant is justified in unhooking herself from the fetus, even if it kills the fetus and the fetus is a person. So, on this ground, abortion seems justifiable.