Quote:
Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
To prevent unnecessary replication, a map of the terrain covered so far.
My initial statement, even if the fetus is a person, no person has the right to the use of another person's body without her consent.
Response 1: The mother consents. Objection: notion of consent is far too broad and would, for example, classify as "consent to sex" any act a woman may perform that increased the possibility of rape (e.g., either leaving her house or inviting another person in).
|
The objection is a non-sequitur, because one could not necessarily expect to be attacked outside the home, assuming one lives in a reasonably safe area. However, if the woman goes to a party wearing provocative clothing, and gets stoned out of her mind with a bunch of bikers, she can certainly said to have set herself up for the predictable event.
Quote:
|
Response 2: The mother's right to withhold consent can be withdrawn when there are other concerns at stake. Objection: Such a principle is nonuniversalizabile. If universalized, it would give any individual the right to demand by right the organs, tissue, or even the use of the body of another person without consent under similar circumstances so long as the individual drafted to provide this aid was not killed in the process.
|
Again, a non-sequitur, for reasons I noted earlier.
Quote:
Okay, these are the arguments that have already gone by. Now, the new argument.
Response 3: The mother performed an act that put the fetus in a worse state than it would have otherwise been, and is thus responsible for the damage.
Objection: The only applicable "prior act" that would qualify is having sex. However, if the mother had not had sex, the fetus would not have been conceived. Yet, there is no rational sense to be made of the claim that a fetus never conceived is better off than a fetus conceived and aborted.
|
This is insanely preposterous, neglecting as it does the obvious possibility that the fetus is a human being with some degree of consciousness. You might as well say that the newborn child of drug-addicted parents is better off being strangled at birth than to grow up with such parenting.
Quote:
|
Such an argument would have to view the conception itself as a wrong -- with the conceived as the victim -- for which some compensation is due.
|
Compensation? How on earth does one compensate a human being for its own death?
Quote:
|
But, again, if compenation were viewed as any act that placed the "victim" in at least the same state as he would have been in had the original "wrongful act" not occured, then abortion remains a perfectly fit option. It certainly restores the "victim" to the same state it would have been at if the "wrong" of conception had not happened.
|
By this logic, there is nothing wrong with any murder.
Quote:
|
Personally, I think it is absurd to think that my mother somehow wronged me by conceiving me and, as a result, owed me nine months of gestation as compensation for this wrong.
|
So do I, so I have to wonder why you bring up such an absurdity.
Quote:
|
Rather, I had no right to demand the use of my mother's body for 9 months. It was a gift -- not a duty -- in the same sense that if I needed a kidney or bone marrow that her donation of such an organ or tissue would also be a gift -- not a duty -- not something that I had a right to force on her by law.
|
By that logic, neither was her feeding you as a newborn her duty. She could have left you in a patch of wilderness somewhere to fend for yourself.
05-13-2003, 05:09 PM
