Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba210h [2017/08/01 12:14] – mmccannutsfl:classroom:seminars:pba210h [2023/06/12 09:06] (current) – [The Response] mmccann
Line 31: Line 31:
  
 ===== The Response ===== ===== The Response =====
 +{{youtube>YmBrUcpOxDw}}
 +
   - __Key question__: **What is the nature and purpose of the kidney versus the nature and purpose of the uterus?**   - __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's), for that body. A woman can live without her uterus but a fetus cannot; the uterus exists more for the pre-born child than for his or her mother.     * __Function of kidneys versus uterus__: Kidneys exist //in// a body, for that body. The uterus exists around a body (a pre-born child's), for that body. A woman can live without her uterus but a fetus cannot; the uterus exists more for the pre-born child than for his or her mother.
Line 38: Line 40:
     * With the kidney, if nothing is done, one person dies; in the pregnancy, if nothing is done, no one dies.     * 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 //abortionist// to decapitate, dismember and disembowel the pre-born child? (This is the means through which a mother's bodily autonomy is exercised)     * Put it from the perspective of the physician performing the abortion rather than the woman requesting an abortion: is it morally permissible for the //abortionist// to decapitate, dismember and disembowel the pre-born child? (This is the means through which a mother's bodily autonomy is exercised)
 +    * 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)." I.e. R2L is a negative right, the right to not be killed
   - FIXME Stephanie's cabin analogy: if a woman wakes up found abandoned in cabin with newborn child (not her own), and there is formula in the fridge (or she recently gave birth and is capable of breastfeeding), would even she have a duty to provide that child, who is under her charge and who she is uniquely and solely able to provide for, with the necessaries of life?   - FIXME Stephanie's cabin analogy: if a woman wakes up found abandoned in cabin with newborn child (not her own), and there is formula in the fridge (or she recently gave birth and is capable of breastfeeding), would even she have a duty to provide that child, who is under her charge and who she is uniquely and solely able to provide for, with the necessaries of life?
   - FIXME is this the right place for this argument? __Dependency implies an //increased// responsibility__: Rather than a duty of care to vulnerable people relinquishing a right to life, in every other circumstance we acknowledge that a duty of care to vulnerable/dependent persons in our care actually results in an //increased// responsibility. This is not just a flawed argument in favour of abortion, but it's actually another argument //against// abortion!   - FIXME is this the right place for this argument? __Dependency implies an //increased// responsibility__: Rather than a duty of care to vulnerable people relinquishing a right to life, in every other circumstance we acknowledge that a duty of care to vulnerable/dependent persons in our care actually results in an //increased// responsibility. This is not just a flawed argument in favour of abortion, but it's actually another argument //against// abortion!
Line 44: Line 47:
       * Captain Francesco Schettino of the Costa Concordia abandoned ship       * Captain Francesco Schettino of the Costa Concordia abandoned ship
 > Using power responsibly is what the world saw in January 2009 when Chesley Sullenberger ("Sully") safely landed a US Airways Flight on the Hudson River after its engine blew. In an unplanned, undesirable, unwanted moment, he chose to do what was right—to land the plane as safely as possible. Not only that, but as water was filling the cabin, he walked the aisle twice to make sure every passenger had been rescued. > Using power responsibly is what the world saw in January 2009 when Chesley Sullenberger ("Sully") safely landed a US Airways Flight on the Hudson River after its engine blew. In an unplanned, undesirable, unwanted moment, he chose to do what was right—to land the plane as safely as possible. Not only that, but as water was filling the cabin, he walked the aisle twice to make sure every passenger had been rescued.
 +
 +FIXME in dialogue: important to establish whether PCer thinks embryo is a person (funny video mock dialogue from SPL https://youtu.be/pwvCCyHepS8)
 ===== The Law ===== ===== The Law =====
 It's not sufficient to say that there's a moral obligation, but also that there is justification for this obligation being legal as well. It's not sufficient to say that there's a moral obligation, but also that there is justification for this obligation being legal as well.
Line 83: Line 88:
         * Just because something is harmful doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be illegal, or criminal. For example, with child safety and duty of care after birth, there are point-of-sale restrictions, or regulations (e.g. car seats), or other areas that are just more educational campaigns (e.g. how to avoid SIDS or safe co-sleeping practices)         * Just because something is harmful doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be illegal, or criminal. For example, with child safety and duty of care after birth, there are point-of-sale restrictions, or regulations (e.g. car seats), or other areas that are just more educational campaigns (e.g. how to avoid SIDS or safe co-sleeping practices)
     * 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's still a lot of policy work and legal questions and distinctions to be determined. There are lots of options and possibilities.     * 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's still a lot of policy work and legal questions and distinctions to be determined. There are lots of options and possibilities.
 +
 +
 +FIXME interesting article on the difference between the "right to refuse"/violinist argument vs. the "sovereign zone" argument + how to counter it in dialogue https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/autumn-in-the-sovereign-zone-why-its-my-body-i-can-do-what-i-want-wont-do/