Abortion

08 January 2011

We need to distinguish two questions in considering abortion:

  • 如果堕胎在道德上是反对的,为什么?是因为我们侵犯了胎儿的权利吗?或者是其他原因,比如它表达了一种对人类生活的漫不经心的态度?
  • if we interfere with a woman’s choice to have an abortion, have we wronged the woman? Do we, or does government, have the right to interfere with the exercise of that choice?

The answer to the first question only partly determines the answer to the second. If there’s nothing morally objectionable about abortion, there’s no legitimate reason to interfere with a woman's choice. But just because there might be something objectionable, it doesn't follow that we have the right to interfere.

Here’s an analogy. I think its wrong to drink yourself silly in your own home, in a way that undermines your potential as a human being and your ability to have relationships with other people. But I don’t think the government or society has the right to prevent a person from doing these things, at least not in the privacy of his own home when he’s alone.

然而,如果堕胎是错误的,因为胎儿有生命的权利,实际上是谋杀一个人,这是一个更严重的错误,比喝到忘记自己。Ifthat’sthe answer to the first question, then doesn’t it determine the answer to the second --- that government and society have a right to prevent abortions?

Well, maybe not. There’s a famous article by Judith Thomson. She imagines a situation in which a gifted violinist, for reasons that are left obscure, has taken up residence in your abdomen, and needs to remain there for nine months before he can be safely extracted. Wouldn’t you have the right to insist that he be removed forthwith, even if it meant his death?

This leads to a second distinction. I think there are two basic strategies for defending a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

The more straightforward strategy I’ll call the ``Tooley” strategy, after one of its clearest exponents, Michael Tooley. It says basically that the right to life pertains to persons, and not every live human being is a person. So, even if we grant --- which I must say seems to me undeniable --- that a human fetus is a live human being, it doesn’t follow that it’s a person, and it doesn’t follow that it has a right to life, and that killing it is a case of murder.

People who advocate this line argue that being a person involves various things that fetuses don't have --- at least in the early stages, perhaps self-consciousness and certain emotions. And of course plenty of people think this strategy is wrongheaded --- perhaps because the issue is really when the fetus gets a soul, not when it acquires some intellectual capacities.

The other strategy is the Thomson strategy. Even if a fetus is a person, even if killing it is homicide, it may be something a woman has right to do. Homicide may be justified in self-defense, or in war, and perhaps it’s justified when a person has taken up residence inside you.

好了,现在我们已经把事情弄清楚了,找出真相并一劳永逸地解决这个问题应该是件很简单的事情。[joke]

Comments(19)


Guest's picture

Guest

Saturday, January 8, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

MORAL DELEMMAE As shown by today's show, philos

MORAL DELEMMAE
正如今天的节目所展示的,哲学家是真正喜欢讨论道德问题的两方面的人;正如我们所指出的,俗人用道德语言来表达他们的观点,尽管对于哲学家来说,他们并没有真正考虑道德问题。
A destitute man sees a $100 bill drop out of a businessman's wallet. What are the moral imperatives here? Giving the money back, AND keeping it for survival are both morally defensible.
Maybe in conflicting morals situations, philosophers should be using their skills to quantify the moral content of the conflicting positions. When confronted with the "But Where Do You Draw The Line" argument, I always say, "when it becomes immoral NOT to draw a line, I will be happy to draw lines for you." I will be happy to draw the line about at what date does an embryo need protection. No problem.
Conservatism says "Things are great, let's just keep doing what we did to get here." Liberalism says "These are our goals, let's do what we need to get to them." Liberalism doesn't measure progress by "morality" or "scientific," it measures progress by "is it getting society closer to a goal." What abortion advocates should be saying, but can't, is that even if babies have to be killed, in their wombs, by their mothers, it is better than ...
Someday, the killing of babies, in the womb, by the mother, as birth control, will be seen as either barbaric, or logical and moral. You philosophers out there frame the future debate, free of today's din, just for fun.
Finally, SHOCKING (REALLY SHOCKING)that it wasn't even mentioned today, is that among the hugest of the philosophical issues in the abortion discussion, are the moral rights of the FATHER of the fetus!!!

Guest's picture

Guest

Saturday, January 8, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

"Still, if abortion is wrong because a fetus has a

“不过,如果堕胎是错误的,因为胎儿有生命的权利,而且实际上是谋杀一个人,是吗?”这是一个比把自己喝昏过去更严重的错误。如果呢?那第一个问题的答案是什么呢?它是否决定了第二个问题的答案——政府和社会有权阻止堕胎?"
It is this portion of your blog that I would like to discuss.
If abortion is murder, then why isn't it the right of the government or society to prevent them? Governments and societies that already consider murder a legal offense ought to prevent abortions if they are indeed murder, if they wish to remain consistent. But if you don't think the government ought to regulate anything in the first place, then obviously you won't agree with this.
Personally, I think Thomson's approach is the weakest. Because a person is taking residence inside of you, you have the right to kill him? Just like you have the right to kill someone in self-defense? The two don't equate. A person threatening your life is choosing to do so, thus you must act against him for self preservation. But a fetus living in a woman is not choosing to do so; it does so as a result of its parents' actions. Thus it is not committing an act against its mother by growing and developing, whether she wants it there or not, and abortion cannot be considered "self-defense" or equated with such.
我同意Tim的观点,胎儿父亲的道德权利应该被讨论。

Guest's picture

Guest

Monday, January 10, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

A two year old orphan wanders into your house, shi

A two year old orphan wanders into your house, shivering and cold. She comes up to your leg and clings to it, probably preferring it because it's warm.
"Get the hell off of me!" you say, but she stares up at you, uncomprehending or unwilling or some combination of both.
She gets so annoying that you feel like murdering her and just scraping her off, but you cannot. If it were an adult, you might understand these motives as assault, but you cannot ascribe the same motives to a child. You try to pry her little fingers off of your leg, but they are somehow stronger than you are. Irritated, you go to the doctor.
"You came here too late," he says. "This little girl's skin has fused to yours. Now, this happens. There will be a cycle in her skin growth in about six or so months when it will be a good time to pry her off. It will hurt a good bit and your leg might never be the same, but she'll come right off nonetheless."
The doctor pauses. "Or, we could puncture her skull, muddle her brains, and chop her body into tiny pieces and vacuum them off your leg."
You have a right to not want the kid on your leg, riding around on your shoulders, up your nose, or - much more realistically - in your uterus. But such is biology; that is sometimes where people end up (and yes, all human beings - entities, bodies, etc. - are people). By the logic of killing the violinist in your belly, wouldn't a conjoined twin have the right to murder his brother, chop him, up, scrape him off, and be free? Yet we find that morally repugnant, because the murdered conjoined twin did not entwine the two of them; it was an accident of biology, with which we must simply learn to live when the alternative is murder.

Guest's picture

Guest

Monday, January 10, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

管理生活吗?I won't vote again until there is

管理生活吗?
I won't vote again until there is a ballot question that simply asks: Do you wish to be governed or free?
I will vote for freedom.
=

Guest's picture

Guest

Monday, January 10, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

JB I'd love the chance to put to you that neither

JB,我想借此机会告诉你,双方都没有完全理解我们的本体论本质——除了双方大多数(如果不是所有的话)都没有一致地运用他们的推理之外——所以双方达成一致的希望很小;他们连最基本的都做不好。

Guest's picture

Guest

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

Pro Freedom =

Pro Freedom
=

Guest's picture

Guest

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

the first two questions needn't be distinguished -

the first two questions needn't be distinguished - they are not related.
the child is related to the mother's body and consciousness. in this way the mother is related to the child, and can understand the relation of the pregnancy and its relation to her. if the child is unconscious, and the mother determines to end the pregnancy - HAVING LEARNED OF THIS POSSIBILITY - the abortion would not disrupt the consciousness of the child and be the concern of the mother -. to end a pregnancy, or to have an abortion when the child is conscious is a disruption to the child and has overstepped the relation of the pregnancy as being solely the experience and conscious relation of the mother.

Guest's picture

Guest

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

No twins have a equal right to life. Neither has h

No twins have a equal right to life. Neither has harmed the other. The flaw in the violinist analogy it only applied to rape. We actually have a moral precept that we are only morally responsible for stangers that we have harmed or made dependent. Since a woman -and man- put this entity in a state of dependency the only compensation that is of any worth is the continued use of the womans body.
We also have a precept that we don't have to risk our lives/body, health or take on any high costs to save anothers life. This is a supererogatory class of situations, but unlike consented sex this only applies to rape situations.

Guest's picture

Guest

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

Did my comments about harm and dependency get thro

Did my comments about harm and dependency get through and weren't accepted or was there a form error?

Guest's picture

Guest

Saturday, January 15, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

So a "potential life" due to rape or incest is les

So a "potential life" due to rape or incest is less valuable then?

Guest's picture

Guest

Saturday, January 15, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

Roux: The way you automatically jump to chopping u

Roux: The way you automatically jump to chopping up the head of the little girl whose hands are fused to your legs is such a stretch that I'm surprised no one has called you out on it. Although in fairness, every example given in this thread just reeks of desperation.
Instead of clinging to all of these emotionally loaded examples involving conjoined twins, two year old orphans, etc., why not have an honest discussion about what's actually going on in the case of abortion? Or at the very least stick to examples where the "persons" involved are as undeveloped, unaware, and incapable of surviving on their own as a fetus would be?
Or, better yet: since you guys are in to philosophy, does anyone think there's some sort of continuum fallacy going on when people claim that a fetus is a person with rights? I've been wondering about that.

Guest's picture

Guest

Sunday, January 16, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

“图利”策略是无可救药的临时策略。Many v

“图利”策略是无可救药的临时策略。许多有价值的社会成员,如婴儿、精神病患者、身体受损者,都不是功能完整的人。人格的法律定义是有意包括婴儿而不包括胎儿。
That leaves the "Thompson" strategy, and it is clear that some forms of homicide besides abortion are indeed socially sanctioned. Perhaps with good reason, but ethical justification for self-defense or war isn't cut and dried.
战争另一边的战士甚至是人类平民过去都不是人,但现在我们比那开明一点了……你只能意外地杀死后者。爬上滑坡。

Guest's picture

Guest

Sunday, January 16, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

Marshall: Did you notice how all of those valued m

Marshall: Did you notice how all of those valued members of society you just named -- infants, the insane, the bodily damaged -- don't depend on any specific human life support machine for survival?
我不明白人们怎么能如此轻易地掩盖那完全不是小事的事实。在我看来,这是堕胎辩论的关键所在。

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Monday, January 17, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

Going back to Mr. Perry's original question, I thi

回到佩里先生最初的问题,我认为我们必须决定堕胎是否在道德上受到反对。对许多有信仰的人来说,显然是这样。对其他人来说,尽管有信仰,这也是反对的,所以似乎神学上的禁止不一定是决定因素。我并不是所谓的情境伦理的倡导者,但是,尽管如此,我也不能容忍强奸导致的怀孕会导致一个不想要的孩子。一些评论者似乎认为,无论环境如何,这样的生活都是神圣的。我不这么想。
It appears that we cannot collectively decide how we feel about abortion. For much too long, we could not collectively decide how we felt about unlawful race and sex discrimination. When in doubt, legislate. When legislation is flouted or ignored, take it to court.
但是,你说,一定有更好的方法!找到它,然后。它至少应该值一个诺贝尔奖,也许两个。

Guest's picture

Guest

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

"But,you say,there must be a better way! Find it,

"But,you say,there must be a better way! Find it, then. It should be worth at least one Nobel---maybe two."
The Way is truth.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Nobel Committee, and Fellow Earthlings,
I would like to first thank Mom and Dad for choosing not to abort me, then Michelangelo for pointing me toward the river, and Einstien and Descartes for showing me the simplification of a problem. And...
=

Guest's picture

Guest

Sunday, January 23, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

Blaze 1st it isn't a potential life and it isn't a

火焰一号,它不是一种潜在的生活,也不是没有价值。我们只是对那些我们没有伤害过的人没有积极的身体义务。
顺便说一句,只要坚持就不需要诺贝尔奖。

Guest's picture

Guest

Saturday, January 29, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

The focus on the fetus in this debate ignores what

这场辩论的焦点集中在胎儿身上,却忽略了人类最重要的权利是什么:至少在断奶前给予关爱和抚育。如果父母没有准备好,没有意愿,也没有能力提供同样的东西,那么任何人有什么权利告诉妈妈她必须要生下这个孩子呢?父系的基因被诅咒。如果他没有准备好做一个称职的父亲,他的意见就毫无价值。这并不是说,没有父亲堕胎就应该做,母亲可能会做出单身母亲的选择,如果这对她有吸引力,而且只对她有吸引力。在这件事上,只有怀孕的女人才有发言权。

Guest's picture

Guest

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 -- 5:00 PM

没有争议!This is not a question of mora

没有争议!这不是道德问题,因为没有问题。我们都以同样的方式来到这个世界,我们都是在我们母亲的子宫里形成的,幸运的是我们的母亲决定不在子宫里杀死我们,不,不,不是流产,是杀死,你实际上是在破坏能量,以一种最纯粹的形式!有趣的是,它被证明的能量无法被创造或摧毁。被中止的能量会发生什么?胚胎肯定是死了。但其engery . .它现在在哪里?
ABORTION IS THE MOST UNNATURAL, INHUMANE ACT of any human being. because when a woman has life forming inside of her body any good womans first instinct is to protct and care for, keep any harm away from the baby.
Now a days its all about the girl who got pregnant, her feelings, her circumstances, no one thinks once about the child and maybe that embryo would like that chance to live!!(you think?). If its own mother won't defend it.. who will? No matter what stage of LIFE!! remember a zygote is a stage of LIFE!!!!!! conception has been completed! it is a life stage! You were once in that stage as well.
Stop being selfish! stop being ignorant! OPEN YOUR EYES!!!WAKE UP! Get a clue and acknowledge what is really going on here! that is mothers are killing there young in the most vunerable states of life, dosn't that make you sick...?

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Wednesday, February 16, 2022 -- 12:24 PM

The breadth of the topic

The breadth of the topic dealing with Supreme Court appointments is difficult to assess on the varied bases offered, insofar as different justices have differing views on the range of issues which come before that body. When a new justice, Chief or Associate, is under consideration, the matter of qualifications, a priori previous stance and voting record, is a separate matter, going to factors such as judicial demeanor and disposition, or: does he or she play well with others. I am not being facetious. Each justice must carry his/her weight. In a previous comment, I implied that at least one sitting associate does not do so. I did this without naming names---my insinuation was clear, based on other known factors. i also cut a beloved president some slack. So, if you wish to approach the issue, piecemeal, good luck.
我将愉快地审查和考虑研究结果,不带任何批评。其他人可能不会这么慷慨。

I've read and agree to abide by the Community Guidelines