Post by Derek Nahigyan on Jul 21, 2009 0:42:05 GMT -5
This is just to get started. Add more as it goes, but essentially this is the abortion debate as interpreted by myself, with several points--this was part of my mid-term. It's used to raise more questions than answers. Go nuts. (I'll specifically cite the book later)
Personhood: As the introduction states, it is virtually impossible to determine when personhood begins without thorough knowledge about everybody’s past and circumstances. Almost all philosophers, for example, would agree that abortion after rape is acceptable, but the line is drawn when asked what qualifies as a human being?
The philosophers in this book, Jane English, Feinberg, Wayne Sumner, and Justice Harry A. Blackman, all agree that abortion is dependent on how early into the pregnancy you are. For example the first trimester; they believe that in 3 months, you should be allowed to abort, but if you intend to abort because you cannot hop on a plane to England, that is simply inexcusable. Time is very important in the personhood debate.
Judith James Thompson provides the example of waking up with your body attached to some stranger who will surely die if you disconnect, but the stranger has “no right against you, that you should allow him the continued use of your kidneys.” (187) This is more useful in the justification of why aborting after rape is acceptable, but it works with a normal pregnancy as well since no contraception is full proof. Therefore, if you’re using birth control and condoms as your primary means of contraception, and it fails, you are have no obligation to see the pregnancy through. Thompson and Sumner back this claim saying, just because you choose to have sex, doesn’t mean you want a child. The two choices are different, and “relying on contraception as a primary means of birth control, as well as electing early abortion, whatever the reasons, she has done nothing immoral.” (Sumner 215). Which segways into our next argument, what classifies an immoral abortion? We’ve already approached the extreme of ‘aborting to go on a plane trip,’ but what other arguments are provided as to who should be allowed to abort and under what circumstances? Sumner and Thompson say all reasons are valid in the first three months. The idea of what qualifies as a person however, comes into the forefront.
Wilkins references Feinberg on page 173 to consider the fetus as a person in training and that they require supervision. They continue to train until the supervisor says, ‘no.’ Or, as the analogy goes, when the mother decides to stop. I believe this to be a valid support argument for Thompson and Sumner because it follows the three month rule. If a person is trained for three months, and therefore proficient at his or her job, then there is no reason why they would need continued training. For the supervisor to fire the employee after such a time would be unreasonable, as would the latter months of the pregnancy since the child would have a very obvious human shape. Sumner also uses an analogy, describing a car, it will deteriorate if it goes neglected, as will a tree, as will a baby, why then, are these not considered the same? Unfortunately, there is no perfect way to relate a fetus to another aspect of life. Even Feinberg mentions on page 202 that it is impossible, and he uses personhood as an analogy to citizenship, where you have to exist for a certain period of time to attain it. It is clear that while each of these arguments has a good number of points, not a single one is completely accurate to portraying what qualifies as personhood.
Blackman successfully analyzes the history of abortion and why it was refuted early on. The main reasons he gives are: 1. Because it was damaging to women’s health, but new technology and sciences have made this not so. 2. Because it was believed to encourage sexual promiscuity, but that is not the case. And 3. The state was concerned for life, including prenatal. This is the only argument still on the table today. Which begs the question, what qualifies as human? Mary Anne Warren says that a human must contain the first two, or even one of the five qualities to be deemed a human being: 1. Consciousness. 2. Reasoning capabilities. 3. Self-motivated activity. 4. Capacity to communicate. And, 5. There has to be some presence of self-concepts. It is agreed, without any arguments that the baby does not have any of these five things, which are essential to human life. One could refute this by saying, not all humans possess these traits, but Warren openly admits that there are humans whose minds have been vegetated to the point where they really aren’t human beings. If we accept Warren’s premise, then a baby is certainly not a human being. And Don Marquis supports this, in terms of quality of life. If a 90-year-old male is in a coma on life support, then the entertainment and possibilities of his life are over, and the plug should be pulled lest it cause further pain. Those people are no longer human beings, and while Don Marquis supports that case, he says that a baby is, given that it has a potential future full of entertainment and joys, it is not allowed to be murdered, but following Warren’s premise, it is no different than that 90-year-old on life support.
One of the arguments is that a woman should be allowed to abort if it directly affects her health, even anti-abortionists admit to that because they have to weigh who is of greater value. Thompson is able, however, to refute even that claim, since the baby is living off of you, and therefore requires a decrease in health. She admits that if pregnancy only lasted an hour, there’d be no reason why a woman couldn’t do it, but because of the longevity of the process, it’s reasonable for a woman to abort.
The biggest argument to be made is the 14th amendment which is the right to privacy, since it is a woman’s body, it is her right to privacy, and the baby has no rights against her. Likewise with the man living off of your body; allowing him to continue existing with the use of your kidneys—while noble—is not required, and therefore, you are allowed to take full control of your kidneys and end his life.
Personhood: As the introduction states, it is virtually impossible to determine when personhood begins without thorough knowledge about everybody’s past and circumstances. Almost all philosophers, for example, would agree that abortion after rape is acceptable, but the line is drawn when asked what qualifies as a human being?
The philosophers in this book, Jane English, Feinberg, Wayne Sumner, and Justice Harry A. Blackman, all agree that abortion is dependent on how early into the pregnancy you are. For example the first trimester; they believe that in 3 months, you should be allowed to abort, but if you intend to abort because you cannot hop on a plane to England, that is simply inexcusable. Time is very important in the personhood debate.
Judith James Thompson provides the example of waking up with your body attached to some stranger who will surely die if you disconnect, but the stranger has “no right against you, that you should allow him the continued use of your kidneys.” (187) This is more useful in the justification of why aborting after rape is acceptable, but it works with a normal pregnancy as well since no contraception is full proof. Therefore, if you’re using birth control and condoms as your primary means of contraception, and it fails, you are have no obligation to see the pregnancy through. Thompson and Sumner back this claim saying, just because you choose to have sex, doesn’t mean you want a child. The two choices are different, and “relying on contraception as a primary means of birth control, as well as electing early abortion, whatever the reasons, she has done nothing immoral.” (Sumner 215). Which segways into our next argument, what classifies an immoral abortion? We’ve already approached the extreme of ‘aborting to go on a plane trip,’ but what other arguments are provided as to who should be allowed to abort and under what circumstances? Sumner and Thompson say all reasons are valid in the first three months. The idea of what qualifies as a person however, comes into the forefront.
Wilkins references Feinberg on page 173 to consider the fetus as a person in training and that they require supervision. They continue to train until the supervisor says, ‘no.’ Or, as the analogy goes, when the mother decides to stop. I believe this to be a valid support argument for Thompson and Sumner because it follows the three month rule. If a person is trained for three months, and therefore proficient at his or her job, then there is no reason why they would need continued training. For the supervisor to fire the employee after such a time would be unreasonable, as would the latter months of the pregnancy since the child would have a very obvious human shape. Sumner also uses an analogy, describing a car, it will deteriorate if it goes neglected, as will a tree, as will a baby, why then, are these not considered the same? Unfortunately, there is no perfect way to relate a fetus to another aspect of life. Even Feinberg mentions on page 202 that it is impossible, and he uses personhood as an analogy to citizenship, where you have to exist for a certain period of time to attain it. It is clear that while each of these arguments has a good number of points, not a single one is completely accurate to portraying what qualifies as personhood.
Blackman successfully analyzes the history of abortion and why it was refuted early on. The main reasons he gives are: 1. Because it was damaging to women’s health, but new technology and sciences have made this not so. 2. Because it was believed to encourage sexual promiscuity, but that is not the case. And 3. The state was concerned for life, including prenatal. This is the only argument still on the table today. Which begs the question, what qualifies as human? Mary Anne Warren says that a human must contain the first two, or even one of the five qualities to be deemed a human being: 1. Consciousness. 2. Reasoning capabilities. 3. Self-motivated activity. 4. Capacity to communicate. And, 5. There has to be some presence of self-concepts. It is agreed, without any arguments that the baby does not have any of these five things, which are essential to human life. One could refute this by saying, not all humans possess these traits, but Warren openly admits that there are humans whose minds have been vegetated to the point where they really aren’t human beings. If we accept Warren’s premise, then a baby is certainly not a human being. And Don Marquis supports this, in terms of quality of life. If a 90-year-old male is in a coma on life support, then the entertainment and possibilities of his life are over, and the plug should be pulled lest it cause further pain. Those people are no longer human beings, and while Don Marquis supports that case, he says that a baby is, given that it has a potential future full of entertainment and joys, it is not allowed to be murdered, but following Warren’s premise, it is no different than that 90-year-old on life support.
One of the arguments is that a woman should be allowed to abort if it directly affects her health, even anti-abortionists admit to that because they have to weigh who is of greater value. Thompson is able, however, to refute even that claim, since the baby is living off of you, and therefore requires a decrease in health. She admits that if pregnancy only lasted an hour, there’d be no reason why a woman couldn’t do it, but because of the longevity of the process, it’s reasonable for a woman to abort.
The biggest argument to be made is the 14th amendment which is the right to privacy, since it is a woman’s body, it is her right to privacy, and the baby has no rights against her. Likewise with the man living off of your body; allowing him to continue existing with the use of your kidneys—while noble—is not required, and therefore, you are allowed to take full control of your kidneys and end his life.