Idm o4



Module 4 AbortionLesson 17 – The Fundamental Question and John T. Noonan’s Conservative ArgumentsState what the fundamental question on the morality of abortion is often thought to be, and be able to explain why this question is thought to be fundamentalAbortion is the termination of pregnancy with the intent and result of ending the life of the prenatal organism.The fundamental question when thinking about the morality of abortion is at what point does the fetus acquire the moral right to life?Explain and thoroughly critique Noonan's principal argument for his view that human life begins at conceptionJohn Noonan maintains that abortion is almost always seriously immoral. It is only not wrong when it is necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life. He thinks life beings at conception:1. A being with human genetic code is human.2. A new being receives its human genetic code at conception when the sperm fertilizes the ovum.--3. Therefore, one is human at conception.Noonan then assumes that one is human => one has the right to life => one may not be killed except for reasons of extreme necessity.EVALUATION:Premise 1 is weak. Non-humans can have human genetic code. Cattle are sometimes injected with human genetic code to make their milk more digestible. Same with pigs to grow tissue that can be transplanted to humans. Human hair is not a human. An acorn has the DNA of an oak tree, but is not an oak tree. An egg is not a chicken. An organism that has only human DNA has at best the potential to become a human being but is not one yet.Furthermore, the argument has the fallacy of equivocation. Noonan’s argument slides between two different meanings of the word “human being.”1. All human beings have a right to life.2. The fetus, from conception, is a human being.--3. Therefore, the fetus has a right to life from conception.In the first premise, human beings refers to persons – members of the moral community. In the second premise, human being simply refers to having human genetic material (versus genetic material from another species). That is, the fetus is genetically human.Explain and critically assess Noonan's supporting argument for his view that human life begins at conception1. Human life must begin at some point.2. In deciding when human life begins, we should pay attention to probabilities.3. There is a sharp shift in the probability of development at conception.--Therefore, it is reasonable to think human life begins at this point ie. conception.Noonan does not intend this argument to be conclusive proof for his view of when human life begins, but rather as an inductive argument.The principal problems with the argument is that the premises, even if true, do not guarantee the conclusion to be true. E.g. I have made a non-refundable down payment on the car you are selling, the probability I will own the car have gone up greatly, but does not guarantee that I own the car now.Lesson 18: The Moral Significance of PotentialityExplain and evaluate the relationship between potentiality and rightsEven if a fetus is not a human being with rights at conception, it is a potential human being with potential rights at conception.1. A fetus is a potential rights holder from conception.2. If something is a potential rights holder it should get rights now.--3. Therefore, a fetus has rights from conception.Premise 2 is certainly suspect. Such a principle is clearly false. If I am interested in buying your car and your car is for sale, I am the potential owner of your car. But I do not have any rights to your car in virtue of that potential. Likewise, some students may not be of drinking age but they will be.Distinguish between instrumental and non-instrumental valueInstrumental value: it is valuable as a means to something else.Non-instrumental value: It is value that something has in itself or for its own sake.State and evaluate Warren's contract argument for why fetus has value.In the original position, people would value fetuses because it is in their interest to keep their species or culture going, and so will value fetuses as a means to that.State and evaluate Patrick's argument that a fetus has non-instrumental value.The idea that the fetus has value helps to explain why we think a miscarriage normally calls for appropriate sorts of responses, and why we’d be shocked at the woman’s response in the previous example. We are shocked because the mother who regards her miscarriage as no big deal should feel some sense of loss.This value can be demonstrated, by appeal to a certain conception of the good life. Explore the connection between the claim that a fetus has value in virtue of its potential, and it is wrong for a woman to obtain an abortion.Imagine you have an old computer you no longer want. Other may value that computer but you no longer value it. Of course it would be permissible to scrap/recycle the computer. Same with your kidneys, sperm, eggs, and therefore it is unclear why this wouldn’t apply to fetuses.Lesson 19- Mary Anne Warren’s Liberal Defense of AbortionExplain Mary Anne Warren's criteria of personhoodThe traits that are most central to the concept of personhood or humanity in the moral sense, are very roughly, the following:1. Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being) and in particular the capacity of feel pain2. Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems)3. Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control)4. Capacity to communicate (by whatever means)5. The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or bothExplain her argument for her criteria of personhood1. In the early stages of pregnancy, a fetus has none of these personhood traits.2. If one has none of these personhood traits, one is not a rights-holder.--3. Therefore, a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is not a rights-holder.4. In the mid to later parts of pregnancy the fetus may be somewhat conscious, but lacks other traits of personhood.5. The rights of a merely conscious being are not sufficient to override the rights of a full-fledged person.--6. A woman may obtain an abortion at any stage for any reason.Critically evaluate her criteria of personhoodOne could attack her criteria of personhood. One might argue that her criteria must be false since it has morally unacceptable implications.Critically evaluate her argument for personhoodLesson 20- L. W. Sumner’s Argument for a Moderate viewExplain Sumner's specifications for an adequate view of the moral status of the fetusAn adequate view of the moral status of the fetus should be1) Development2) Gradual3) DifferentialThis means that an adequate view of the moral status of the fetus should reflect the fact that the prenatal organism is continuously developing throughout pregnancy; should reflect the fact that this development is gradual; and that there is a large difference between the zygote and the mature fetus.Secondly, Sumner thinks that the criterion of moral standing must be motivated by a plausible rationale and not be arbitrary, and it must not be vulnerable to clear counterexamples.Explain why Sumner rejects the life criterion and the rationality criterion of moral standingThe criterion that one is human at conception ignores the development of the fetus, and it not differential. Same with a rationality based view – ignores development of the fetus, and cannot account for the great differences between zygote and mature fetus.Explain why Sumner accepts a sentience-based criterion of moral standingSentience is the capacity to experience pleasure and pain. This view takes into account the 3 specifications of an adequate view of moral standing. It is developmental because it recognizes moral status as the fetus develops certain psychological capacities; it is gradual insofar as it is likely that sentience comes on gradually and develops over time; and it is differential, viewing a late fetus as having full or nearly full moral standing, and an early fetus/embryo/zygote as having no moral standing.Further, a sentience based view is motivated by a plausible rationale – something that is sentient has interests. They can be injured or benefited in ways that matter to it. These interests of all sentient beings should be given moral significance.Apply Sumner's criterion of moral standing to the fetus, and to the proper moral and legal status of abortionSentient based views imply that (sentient) non-rational humans have moral rights; as do non-human animals that are sentient.Understand some of the principal difficulties with Sumner's sentience based viewAn objection to the view is that the view implies that human infants and the mentally challenged also lack a full right to life. The reply could be to bite the bullet.An objection to the strong sentience based view is that it views the killing of sentient non-humans as a violation of someone’s full moral right to life (e.g. killing a fish is the same as killing a human).An objection to all sentient based views is that it is odd to grant the right to life based on the capacity to feel pleasure and pain. This capacity could give someone a reason not to have suffering inflicted or to be given pleasure, but why does it give one a right to life?Lesson 21: Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “Defense of Abortion”Explain Thomson's violinist analogyYou wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers have canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you. "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you... But still they did it, and now the violinist is plugged in to you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? ...Thomson basically wants to avoid the fundamental question that human life begins at conception (y/n) and attacks the premise of the conservative argument that one’s right to life should come before another’s right to control his/her body.Discuss difficulties with this analogy, and how it might be improvedThe case of the violinist is meant to be analogous with pregnancy due to rape.The two cases being compared may be relevantly different. In the violinist case, you are bedridden for 9 months, but pregnant women are not bedridden.There are also financial and emotional considerations. The violinist is independent after 9 months, the baby is not.We must also consider third parties – even if it is morally permissible for you to remove the violinist, one might still claim that one must show that it is also morally permissible for a 3rd party to provide the abortion.The violinist doesn’t have the same DNA as the kidnapped person but the fetus does. Pregnancy can be physically draining and there are the effect of hormones and such.Explain and evaluate Thomson's tiny house analogySuppose you find yourself trapped in a tiny house with a growing child. A very tiny house and rapidly growing child – you are up against the wall of the house and in a few minutes you will be crushed to death. The woman is the person who houses the child and should not need to wait passively while it crushes her to death.Analyze the analogy of Smith and JonesSmith has a coat that he needs to keep from freezing, but Jones also needs it. It is not impartiality that says “I cannot choose between you” when Smith owns the coat. One cannot reasonably say “Of course it’s your coat, but no one may choose between you and Jones who is to have it.”Explain Thomson's point that a right to life does not always entail a right not to be killedLesson 22: Don Marquis’ Argument Against AbortionExplain Marquis' Future Like Ours Argument against the morality of abortionIt is wrong to kill others because it causes them the loss of their valuable future. This can then be applied to the issue of abortion. In standard cases of abortion, abortion causes the fetus the loss of its valuable future.1. Killing you or me is prima facie seriously immoral because it causes you or me the loss of a future of value.--2. Therefore, it is prima facie seriously wrong to cause anything the loss of its future of value (a future like ours).3. Abortion, in standard cases, causes the fetus the loss of a future of value (a future like ours.)--4. Therefore, in standard cases, abortion is prima facie seriously immoral.Explain and evaluate the Contraception Objection to this argument1. Do unwanted fetuses have a future of value?-one could question premise 3-unwanted fetuses are unlikely to become persons with valuable futures-Marquis would say that even unwanted fetuses can still have futures of value2. Contraception Objection-premise 2: it is wrong to cause anything the loss of a future of value or a future like ours IS false. For if this is true then contraception would also be wrong, because it deprives the combination of sperm and ovum a future of value (a future like ours). But of course contraception is not wrong.Marquis would reply to say that contraception prevents the existence of individuals and does not prevent individuals from having futures like ours.Explain and evaluate the objection that Marquis' argument is unsound because it commits the fallacy of equivocationSummary of Marquis’ argument:1. It is prima facie seriously wrong to cause an individual the loss of a future of value.2. Abortion, in standard cases, causes an individual the loss of a future of value.--3. Therefore, in standard cases, abortion is prima facie seriously wrong.A neutral loss vs. a moral loss. If A beats B in a race by running faster than B, this causes B the loss of the trophy – this is neutral. If the same occurs because B stole A’s running shoes, then the loss is a moral loss.In premise 1 of the argument above, the loss is a moral loss, but in 2, it could just be a neutral loss, making the argument unsound.Lesson 23: Virtue Theory and Abortion: Patrick’s ViewState Patrick's reasons for thinking a fetus has non-instrumental value.Whether the fetus has rights does not determine whether abortion is right or wrong. Rather, it depends on whether the act of abortion is virtuous or vicious.Explain Patrick's argument for why he thinks Deb's abortion was morally permissible even if her fetus had a right to life.All things considered, Deb was not acting viciously but virtuously. Deb wanted to have an abortion to protect very important and worthwhile goods in her and Derek’s life. If she has the child, it will likely destroy the marriage and business they have. There’s also a near certainty that the child will be mentally handicapped and have a difficult life. Having an abortion will show virtues like love, friendship, prudence, industriousness, loyalty, kindness, charity, etc.Think critically about Patrick's arguments.Explain how virtue theory approaches the morality of abortion.Whether the fetus has rights does not determine whether abortion is right or wrong. If the fetus does not have rights, it could still be wrong to abort it if one’s decision to do so is vicious. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download