Don Marquis says that anything with human genetic code is human. Human fetus have a human genetic code. Therefore fetuses are human. Marquis is not arguing for againt abortion with human genetic code. Marquis belives that against abortion's biggerst point is "The view that what makes killing wrong is the loss to the victim of the value of the victem's future(p:550)".
Marquis is counter arguing based on his theory all the way to the end on his essay with "the loss of one's future of one's future is the wrong making feature of one's being killed dose not entail as santity-of-human-life theories do, that active euthanasia is worng(P:550)".
Marquis did not dealing with any option other than save fetus life. It brings some question on us that what we should do in case of someone got raped and unwanted pregnancy or if mother's health is jeopadized in her life by her pregnacy.
In contrast, A defense of abortion by Judith Jarvis Thomson, Her argument was that "Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body(p567)". Thomson belives that fetus is a person from the moment of conception.
Thomson does not belive that abortion shoud not performed unless mother has a serious diseases that would be affect her life by carrying full term of pregnacy as cardiac disease. Thomson says" directltly killing innocent people is a murder and murder is always and absolutely impermissible, abortion may not be performed(p:568)".
If only options are save a baby and letting mother die or save mother's life and letting baby die. What would you do in this case? Mother decided to perform abortion by third person( physician)to save her life then this is her right to save her life. Everyone has a right to own life. Is it child's life is more weightier than mother's life? No one can say that she was wrong to save her life.
If someone has a unwanted pregnacy by result of rape, then she is right to refuse carry a baby because she did not consented.
Thomson is giving a some room to protect individual right and autonomy in her essay, however, she is almost close to prolife that she does not belive to perform any abortion except few cases as described in above.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is a strong need for Religious Ethics?!
ReplyDeleteBoth the Marquis and the Thomson articles stimulate much contemplation on this most sensitive subject. However, in order to have true peace of mind one would benefit greatly from a belief system like utilitarianism or Kantianism to decide what might be the right or wrong action to take.
Intuitively, people know (but often deny) that a fetus has a potential for a future of value --many cells, tissues, and organs working together for a common cause -- Life. If the fetus is left alone,in the womb, the majority would develope into having sentience, mentation, future of value, and a potential of engaging in activities; much unlike the growth of an oak tree. During abortions the intent of the ovum and the spermatozoa was halted, a premature death.
It is clear to me that a fetus is both human and alive; it is a human being no matter what stage after conception. The potential is there... that is all that is necessary, no dependence should be put on the appearance of the growing individual -- there is a capacity to desire its own existence.
Regarding Thomson drawing a line in the development of a fetus looks dim...I agree! Aborting an unwanted fetus due to rape is not depriving it of any rights and is not unjust killing. Most likely the fetus will not stay partial or full term if "it" is going to be brought/born in an unwanted, unhappy environment; often they are spontaneously aborted anyway. When it comes to abortion, I also agree with the author in that there are cases and cases, and that details do make the final difference in our choices.
I appreciate Thomson's analogy about the box of chocolates. I am afraid that in our contemporary global society, we might have too many hoarding the whole chocolate box...?!