Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Next revision | Previous revision | ||
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba210h [2013/09/28 10:51] – imported from apologetics and merged with Tomboy notes balleyne | utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba210h [2023/06/12 09:06] (current) – [The Response] mmccann | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====== PBA210H: Bodily Autonomy ====== | ====== PBA210H: Bodily Autonomy ====== | ||
- | 1st premise objection | + | FIXME clip from movie Up |
- | * Bodily Autonomy | + | FIXME story of gas station, kid getting into wrong car and guy driving away |
- | * Duty of Care in parent/ | + | |
- | * Does the unborn unjustly | + | |
- | * http:// | + | * [[http:// |
- | * http:// | + | * Addressing Bodily Autonomy and duty of care in parent/ |
+ | |||
+ | {{youtube> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== The Objection ===== | ||
+ | ==== Basic Form ==== | ||
+ | * Objection: Shouldn' | ||
+ | * Response: How would she refuse? Does an abortionist have a right to violate the child' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== More Sophisticated Form ==== | ||
+ | This objection attacks the first premise (that it's always wrong to directly and intentionally killing an innocent human being); abortion is permissible because pregnancy involves an extraordinary act on behalf of the mother. | ||
+ | > Suppose that you are in need of a kidney transplant in order to survive, and that your mother is the only person in the world who is a physical match, meaning that she is the only person who can provide you with a kidney and hence preserve your life. Do you have a right to your mother’s kidney? | ||
+ | > - Dr. Andrew Sneddon, University of Ottawa | ||
+ | |||
+ | The objection is that while it would be //nice// (permissible, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The analogy: | ||
+ | * concerns two people in a parent-child relationship | ||
+ | * both uncontroversially full members of the moral community, with all of the rights that come with such membership | ||
+ | * One person (the child) requires the other person’s body (the mother’s) to survive | ||
+ | |||
+ | > In the kidney case, my right to life and my need for my mother’s body to survive do not deliver any right whatsoever to her body, let alone a right that trumps her rights to control her body. The same goes for pregnancy. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This is a slightly improved analogy from the famous [[PBA310Y|violinist argument]], which makes a similar claim but with a more melodramatic and less comparable analogy. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== The Response ===== | ||
+ | {{youtube> | ||
+ | |||
+ | - __Key question__: **What is the nature and purpose of the kidney versus the nature and purpose of the uterus?** | ||
+ | * __Function of kidneys versus uterus__: Kidneys exist //in// a body, for that body. The uterus exists around a body (a pre-born child' | ||
+ | - __Duty of Care__: mothers (and fathers) have a responsibility to their offspring that they don’t have to strangers((In chapter 7 of Francis Beckwith’s book, Politically Correct Death: Answering Arguments for Abortion Rights (1993), it extensively covers arguments such as this when refuting an analogy similar to the professor’s. The points Beckwith makes are in response to an analogy proposed by abortion advocate Judith Jarvis Thomson, known as " | ||
+ | * Maintaining pregnancy is simply doing for a pre-born child what parents must do for a born child—it' | ||
+ | - __The method of refusing care is not analogous__: | ||
+ | * With the kidney, if nothing is done, one person dies; in the pregnancy, if nothing is done, no one dies. | ||
+ | * Put it from the perspective of the physician performing the abortion rather than the woman requesting an abortion: is it morally permissible for the // | ||
+ | * Katie S: "The right to life is a restriction from directly killing an innocent human being. It is not the right to be kept alive at all costs. They must not be confused. Refusing blood donation is okay, because nobody has the right not to die, however, abortion directly and intentionally kills someone, which violates the right to life. So, the right to life doesn’t force us *to* do something, it prevents us from doing something (killing)." | ||
+ | - FIXME Stephanie' | ||
+ | - FIXME is this the right place for this argument? __Dependency implies an // | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * Chesley Sullenberger, | ||
+ | * Captain Francesco Schettino of the Costa Concordia abandoned ship | ||
+ | > Using power responsibly is what the world saw in January 2009 when Chesley Sullenberger (" | ||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME in dialogue: important to establish whether PCer thinks embryo is a person (funny video mock dialogue from SPL https:// | ||
+ | ===== The Law ===== | ||
+ | It's not sufficient to say that there' | ||
+ | |||
+ | * First, the only way out of the parental obligation to provide the necessities of life in pregnancy it is to directly and intentionally cause the death of the pre-born child -- it's abortion that should be illegal first and foremost, and the parental obligation almost just follows from that | ||
+ | * Our Criminal Code recognizes a duty for parents/ | ||
+ | * (1) Every one is under a legal duty | ||
+ | * (a) as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years; | ||
+ | * (b) to provide necessaries of life to their spouse or common-law partner; and | ||
+ | * %%(c)%% to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person | ||
+ | * (i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and | ||
+ | * (ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life. | ||
+ | * //with some exceptions in Section 2 if the person' | ||
+ | * [[wp> | ||
+ | * e.g. Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms: "Every human being whose life is in peril has a right to assistance...Every person must come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for aid, by giving him the necessary and immediate physical assistance, unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason." | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Absolute Bodily Rights ===== | ||
+ | FIXME should this go here? Or under Thompson? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Some argue that the right to bodily autonomy is absolute and extreme, that a woman should have a right to do whatever she wants to her body or to ingest whatever she wants, regardless of whether or not there is another human body within her womb. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Most people don't accept this view though. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * We have warnings against alcohol consumption for pregnant women | ||
+ | * [[wp> | ||
+ | |||
+ | However, people might still make a moral/legal distinction -- "Okay, well, I agree it's //immoral// for a pregnant woman to ingest something she knows will harm her child, but what are you going to do, prosecute her or throw her in jail for having too many glasses of wine? What if she doesn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Some possible responses: | ||
+ | * There are a ton of different ways distinctions could be made or laws could be crafted | ||
+ | * First, it's //very// easy to distinguish between performing a surgical abortion procedure and ingesting something which might cause an abortion as a side effect. So we can immediately set aside surgical abortions as easy to restrict apart from thalidomide | ||
+ | * Second, let's look for useful references in existing law | ||
+ | * How do we handle the legal responsibility for ingesting dangerous amounts of alcohol with respect to drivers? | ||
+ | * Bartenders have a responsibility to cut people off | ||
+ | * There are regulations around blood-alcohol levels | ||
+ | * May or may not be relevant, because people //know// they' | ||
+ | * How do we handle the legal responsibility for not causing harm to your children? | ||
+ | * Ingesting some things can be harmful to children when breastfeeding. How does the law handle this? | ||
+ | * Just because something is harmful doesn' | ||
+ | * Third, we don't need to have all the answers. We can clearly identify some cases that ought to be illegal (e.g. a surgical abortion), and others that perhaps should not be illegal, and many in between. The pro-life position is that pre-born humans should have human rights too, but there' | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME interesting article on the difference between the "right to refuse"/ |