Thinks early fetuses are not persons, but will assume they are for the sake of argument. How does it follow that abortion is (typically) wrong?
Standard “personhood” argument against abortion:
Persons have a right to life. Yes, women have the right to decide what will happen in and to their bodies. But fetuses are persons, and their right to life is stronger than women’s rights to their bodies. So fetuses may not be killed, so abortion is wrong. (p. 98)
Persons have a right to life. Yes, people have the right to decide what will happen in and to their bodies. But the violinist is a person, and his right to life is stronger than people’s rights to their bodies. So the violinist may not be unplugged and killed. He must stay plugged into you. (p. 98)
- If the standard personhood argument against abortion is sound, then the argument in the violinist case is sound too (and so it would be wrong for you to unplug).
- But the argument in the violinist case is not sound (since it would be permissible for you to unplug.
- So the standard personhood argument against abortion is not sound also.
Rape? Rape is irrelevant to what rights you have. (99)
Part 1. On the “extreme view” that abortion is impermissible even to save the pregnant woman’s life.
If the both have a right to life, why not flip a coin? Or mother’s right to life + her bodily rights outweigh fetus’s rights?
Theses 1-4 (p. 100), that direct killing is always wrong / murder / a stringent duty, etc.
If 1-4 were true, unplugging from violinist would (always) be wrong. But it’s not, so 1-4 are false.
1-4 are also false because they imply self-defense is wrong. TINY HOUSE CASE (p. 101)
Thus, the extreme view is false.
“The mother owns the house”. A third party, not just the mother, can intervene. (This is in response to some claims in part 2 that 3rd parties couldn’t defend the mother, but the mother surely can defend herself in the TINY HOUSE).
What is entailed by a “right to life” anyway?
Does a right to life entail everything that’s needed for a life to continue? (103)
HENRY FONDA CASE: If I needed a visit by a famous actor to keep on living, would I have a right to that actor’s visit? Would my friends have a right to kidnap him so he visits? [no]
VIOLINIST CASE: Does he have a right to the use of my kidneys? [no]
Does a right to life entail a right to not be killed by anyone?
Again, VIOLINIST CASE
Thompson: “a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body – even if one needs it for life itself. So the right to life will not serve the opponents of abortion in the very simple and clear way in which they seem to have thought it would.” (p. 104)
BOYS BOTH GIVEN CHOCOLATE CASE: both boys are given chocolates to share. (p. 104). If one brother takes them all, he treats the other unjustly.
Unplugging the violinist would not be unjust, because you did not give him the right to use your kidneys.
(p. 105): raped woman does no
BURGLAR BARS example (p. 106)
PEOPLE SEEDS EXAMPLE – No righ
CHOCOLATE CASE 2: Only one boy is given
Even if some
No laws compel Good Samari
Of course, early fe