99% of all abortion debates come down to one person believing that a fetus counts as a human life and the other person saying it doesn’t. There is zero reason to argue any other point unless both people agree on this, because all other points you make will assume your answer to that initial question. For example, this person completely ignored whether the fetus has bodily autonomy, because they assume it’s not a person. If someone disagrees with that fundamental premise, the rest of the argument is nonsense and you have gained nothing presenting it to them.
I think the difference between the example and an abortion is how one potentially interferes with one's bodily autonomy.
If I choose not to donate blood to the girl in the accident, I do not take any action against her, I do not interfere with her autonomy.
In an abortion, the fetus is terminated, often by having the contents of the womb removed or collapsing the skull (in a later term abortion). That, to me at least, is a much more direct action (potentially) violating the fetus' bodily autonomy (if you consider the fetus to be a person).
Essentially, there is a difference between not giving the girl in the accident the blood she needs and shooting her dead, at least as far as bodily autonomy is concerned.
In an abortion, the fetus is terminated, often by having the contents of the womb removed or collapsing the skull (in a later term abortion). That, to me at least, is a much more direct action (potentially) violating the fetus' bodily autonomy (if you consider the fetus to be a person).
That is purely due to mercy though. Abortion could presumably performed by removing the fetus, we just don't do so because we know it will no be viable. If a lack of cruelty is the only difference, you could always reinstate cruelty.
But ONLY due to mercy. They could remove the fetus from the wound and do what they could to keep it alive short of forcing the mother to continue with the pregnancy. We don't, because we know it is doomed to fail.
Normally I see the question framed in a bit of a different light because of that.
Lets change the story to this. Instead of being asked to donate blood to your sister you wake up and find yourself already hooked up to your sister. Do you have the right to stop the blood diffusion for whatever reason?
This frames it the same. A positive action to stop a passive taking from your body.
This is a popular scenario for this argument and is dealt with below. As I'm on mobile I can't direct link, but I will provide the page I pulled this from.
Critics of this argument generally agree that unplugging the violinist is permissible, but claim there are morally relevant disanalogies between the violinist scenario and typical cases of abortion. The most common objection is that the violinist scenario, involving a kidnapping, is analogous only to abortion after rape. In most cases of abortion, it is said, the pregnant woman was not raped but had intercourse voluntarily, and thus has either tacitly consented to allowing the embryo to use her body (the tacit consent objection[45]), or else has a duty to sustain the embryo because the woman herself caused it to stand in need of her body (the responsibility objection[46]). Other common objections turn on the claim that the embryo is the pregnant woman's child whereas the violinist is a stranger (the stranger versus offspring objection[47]); that abortion kills the embryo whereas unplugging the violinist merely lets him die (the killing versus letting die objection[47]); or, similarly, that abortion intentionally causes the embryo's death whereas unplugging the violinist merely causes death as a foreseen but unintended side-effect (the intending versus foreseeing objection;[48] cf the doctrine of double effect).
Defenders of Thomson's argument—most notably David Boonin[49]—reply that the alleged disanalogies between the violinist scenario and typical cases of abortion do not hold, either because the factors that critics appeal to are not genuinely morally relevant, or because those factors are morally relevant but do not apply to abortion in the way that critics have claimed. Critics have in turn responded to Boonin's arguments.[50]
Alternative scenarios have been put forth as more accurate and realistic representations of the moral issues present in abortion. John Noonan proposes the scenario of a family who was found to be liable for frostbite finger loss suffered by a dinner guest whom they refused to allow to stay overnight, although it was very cold outside and the guest showed signs of being sick. It is argued that just as it would not be permissible to refuse temporary accommodation for the guest to protect them from physical harm, it would not be permissible to refuse temporary accommodation of a fetus.[51]
Other critics claim that there is a difference between artificial and extraordinary means of preservation, such as medical treatment, kidney dialysis, and blood transfusions, and normal and natural means of preservation, such as gestation, childbirth, and breastfeeding. They argue that if a baby was born into an environment in which there was no replacement available for her mother's breast milk, and the baby would either breastfeed or starve, the mother would have to allow the baby to breastfeed. But the mother would never have to give the baby a blood transfusion, no matter what the circumstances were. The difference between breastfeeding in that scenario and blood transfusions is the difference between gestation and childbirth on the one hand, and using your body as a kidney dialysis machine on the other.[52][53][54][55][56][57]
That's not as general a metaphor as it sounds, though. Even setting aside affirmative steps to terminate a pregnancy, as another respondent mentioned, people also have obligations to their children, to vulnerable minors in their care, and it is illegal to neglect them by cutting off things like food, shelter, or medical care that they need to live.
OP's OP's cherry-picking the lack of one particular obligation to assist overlooks other obligations to assist that do exist. (Judgement for the defendant, murder dismissed.)
For someone in good health, I'd argue the opposite, or at most, similar measure.
Having to get food for your kids puts your body tooling around the grocery store instead of where you'd rather be. Having to earn more money keeps it chained to a job and a house where you might not want to be. You've got plenty of obligations to a detached child.
They're different from the ones to a pregnancy, and enforced more morally or legally than viscerally (lost autonomy, not necessarily bodily), but we are making metaphors to legality anyway.
1.2k
u/Fakjbf Sep 11 '18 edited Sep 11 '18
99% of all abortion debates come down to one person believing that a fetus counts as a human life and the other person saying it doesn’t. There is zero reason to argue any other point unless both people agree on this, because all other points you make will assume your answer to that initial question. For example, this person completely ignored whether the fetus has bodily autonomy, because they assume it’s not a person. If someone disagrees with that fundamental premise, the rest of the argument is nonsense and you have gained nothing presenting it to them.