reply to onetruechurch

A challenge to onetruechurch's core argument, that if the fetus is a person then abortion is impermissible. I outline J.J. Thomson's 'violinist' argument, which concedes for the sake of argument that the fetus is a person, but then proceeds to argue that abortion is permissible nonetheless.

For more on Thomson's article, Wikipedia has a good summary, and a full-text link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

Category:

Education

Tags:

• abortion
• ethics
• pro-choice
• pro-life
• J.J.-Thomson
• a-defense-of-abortion

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@sanauj15 "but they're not destroying someone or soon to be someone in exchange for that help."

This is true, but you seem to be assuming that having an abortion destroys someone. I see no reason to think this is the case, anymore than removing a tumor or a woman menstruating is destroying someone. A small lump of cells is not a 'someone'. To be 'someone' you have to have a personality, a mind, a consciousness. Fetuses, at least prior to the 3rd trimester, lack all of these.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@sanauj15 "I would say that you can control getting pregnant a lot better than being raped."

Perhaps. I'm not sure how we would measure either of these. I suspect on some measures one would be easier, and on others the other would be. Either way, I think my basic point holds: even though women can exert some minimal standard of control over getting raped/pregnant (regardless of how much exactly) we don't blame them for it if they do and thus force them to live with the consequences.

[sanauj15]

@SisyphusRedeemed The difference is that you're not robbing a person or "will be person"

of its existence. I don't think it's fair for that unborn child to pay for the mistakes of others.

[sanauj15]

@SisyphusRedeemed You have a good point here, but they're not destroying someone or soon to be someone in exchange for that help.

[sanauj15]

@SisyphusRedeemed

I would say that you can control getting pregnant a lot better than being raped.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@sanauj15 "Which she could have prevented before getting pregnant."

And which she can prevent now by having an abortion. What's the difference?

"If they don't wan't one that's fine, but then again... don't get pregnant."

Or if they do, have an abortion. In both cases you prevent an unwanted child from being born. Again, what's the difference?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@sanauj15 "Should people complain about the effects afterwards?"

I like this analogy better, as yes, I do think people have a right to do drugs. But whether or not they can complain isn't the issue. The question is whether they are obliged to accept the consequences without recourse to intervention. Yet we DO intervene when people get hooked on drugs. We even pay for methadone clinics to help people get off heroin. We don't say 'Sorry, you chose to do it, you're stuck as an addict.'

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@sanauj15 "And still you can't control if you get raped."

If by 'control' you mean 'guarantee 100% that you won't get raped', sure, but that seems like an unreasonably strict use of the word 'control'. You can exercise at least SOME control over your likelihood of getting raped.

[sanauj15]

@SisyphusRedeemed "It surely can be. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant she probably has good reasons."

Which she could have prevented before getting pregnant..

And I'm not saying that every woman born has to have a child and support it. If they don't wan't one that's fine, but then again... don't get pregnant. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

[sanauj15]

@SisyphusRedeemed I was talking about problems of raising the child. I'm not claiming that the responsible things ALWAYS has to be the hardest things.