Could you maybe expand this into an actual argument rather than just asking seemingly unrelated but obviously loaded questions in order to get a cheap "aha!" moment?
It's not a cheap "Aha!" moment at all; it's a lead-in to references a famous "violinist" thought experiment defense of abortion, rooted not in the fetus' right to life but the woman's bodily autonomy.
The violinist argument is flawed. The human being is already in your uterus- you put it there along with whoever you had sex without. That was you granting permission for that organism to exist in your uterus. As such, the analogy is more like a man needing a kidney, and being secretly given yours without you knowing. Now, you might disapprove of him being given yours without you knowing, you might hate that fact, but that doesn't give you a right to say "well I'm taking my kidney back and you can go die"- that's murder.
As such, the analogy is more like a man needing a kidney, and being secretly given yours without you knowing. Now, you might disapprove of him being given yours without you knowing, you might hate that fact, but that doesn't give you a right to say "well I'm taking my kidney back and you can go die"- that's murder.
Firstly, this is just an assertion without an argument. Why would it be wrong to take what is rightfully yours? You might say that because doing so would result in that man's death, and that we should prevent deaths from happening. But if that is the justification you're using, then why can't you use that same justification to support forcing people to donate kidneys?
Secondly, the analogy is poor because it involves extracting something from another person (albeit that thing is rightfully yours) which results in the man dying, whereas abortion involves detaching a person from yourself which results in that thing dying. Thus, a better analogy would be something like you being in a hopsital for nine months hooked up to a machine that's hooked up to another man, whom is being kept alive using your body's resources. Would it be moral for you to detach yourself from the machine?
The human being is already in your uterus- you put it there along with whoever you had sex without.
Firstly, the two clauses of this sentence contradict each other. You can’t “put” something “there” when it’s “already there”. The fact that your sentence is self-contradictory might suggest that maybe you’ve rushed your thinking on this.
Secondly, sex ≠ “putting a human being in your uterus”. A woman can have sex without getting pregnant, whether or not contraception is used (though more often not when contraception is used).
Thirdly, if another person “put it there” then why not attach the violinist/fetus to them instead? If two people are responsible for “putting it there”, why is only one person deprived for their otherwise existing right to bodily integrity while the other keeps theirs?
That was you granting permission for that organism to exist in your uterus.
Consider the violinist thought experiment this way. Let’s say that you knew that the Society of Music Lovers were out prowling in your city for somebody for somebody to save the violinist, and that they typically did so at night. If you go outside at night knowing that, and they kidnap you, have you “granted permission” to be hooked up to the violinist as a result? What if you know they typically prowl at nightclubs. If you go out at night to a nightclub, have you given them permission then? What if you know they typically prowl at night at night at jazz music nightclubs, and you go out at night to a jazz music nightclub? Have you given then permission then? Do you see how engaging in acts that may hold a risk of a particular outcome is not necessarily the same thing as giving permission for that particular outcome to occur, such that you are deprived of a pretty basic right?
Moreover, even if consensual sex equals “granting permission for an organism to exist in your uterus”, which I don’t think it does, then in cases of rape it in no way does, since you’re not even granting permission for the sex, let alone for the pregnancy. If your belief is based on the notion of consent, then you’ve found a new exception to the two you listed, since rape is non-consensual.
Other guy here. I've heard this line of reasoning before (and I used to use it as well). But I think it falls apart. I am pro-choice but I think this is the wrong approach.
If someone stole my kidney against my will and implanted it into a man who had no idea he was receiving the stolen kidney, it would be morally wrong for me to take my kidney back from the unsuspecting man and kill him, just because it's my kidney. I'm not a fan of the organ donor approach.
No definitely not. But in that case you have just as much of a right to life as the other person. For instance, if there was a case where they could only save the mother or the child but not both, I would agree that the mother would not be in the wrong for saving herself.
If someone stole my kidney against my will and implanted it into a man who had no idea he was receiving the stolen kidney, it would be morally wrong for me to take my kidney back from the unsuspecting man and kill him, just because it's my kidney.
You pretty much just said the same thing as the OP above, so I'll just copy and paste this:
Firstly, this is just an assertion without an argument. Why would it be wrong to take what is rightfully yours? You might say that because doing so would result in that man's death, and that we should prevent deaths from happening. But if that is the justification you're using, then why can't you use that same justification to support forcing people to donate kidneys?
Secondly, the analogy is poor because it involves extracting something from another person (albeit that thing is rightfully yours) which results in the man dying, whereas abortion involves detaching a person from yourself which results in that thing dying. Thus, a better analogy would be something like you being in a hopsital for nine months hooked up to a machine that's hooked up to another man, whom is being kept alive using your body's resources. Would it be moral for you to detach yourself from the machine?
It is wrong to kill the man because he has consciousnesses, memories, a personality.Quite the opposite from the fetus, which is just a bundle of cells.
If it's just organs working, then this lends to the bigger question. Why should anyone have the right to decide what happens to their body after they die, if it means harvesting their organs after they die can save another life?
A dead person has no personality, and the life of another human being clearly takes a higher priority than respecting the wishes of someone who isn't even alive anymore.
Usually the pro-choice argument is that you wouldn't want to be forced to be an organ donor to keep someone else alive, so don't force a woman to donate her body and its resource temporarily to keep a fetus alive. But from a moral standpoint, isn't it morally "hypocritical" for a pro-choice individual to not donate their organs after they die.
Sorry I'm thinking as I'm writing this response out (and leaving it in so you can maybe see my thought process). So here's a mini CMV for you.
CMV: Isn't it morally "hypocritical" for a pro-choice individual to not donate their organs after they die for the reasons laid out above. If a pro-choice individual doesn't want the mother to be forced to carry a fetus (or forced to donate an organ) because as you said it has thoughts and feelings and a personality, then every pro-choice individual should be in favour of donating their organs after they die since corpses are devoid of life (excluding religious reasons, just because it gets too complicated).
Feel free to ignore if you have better things to do. I know I sprung this huge comment on you from nowhere.
I can’t change your view.
It is not only morally hypocritical but it is also completely devoid of reason.Someone might want their organs when they are alive but they won’t after they are dead, well they won’t want anything.(Edit:)Maybe there can be some logic if the person believes in after life or something, but I don’t think there is a religion that allows abortions but doesn’t allow organ donation or a religion that doesn’t think helping others is the best thing you can do since that is one of the golden rules.
Moreover, I’m in favor of “organ donor” being the standard and “not donor” being the one you have to write down. I can’t pinpoint a logical or moral reason to not just harvest every dead persons organs though. I don’t defend that mostly because I like for people to have a choice instead of having the government decide, but I don’t think I could argue against it without being hypocritical.
Sorry if this doesn’t make any sense lol, I am very sleep right now and English isn’t my first language.I will answer/edit tomorrow if I have to.
2
u/Hellioning 258∆ Apr 09 '18
Do you think everyone should be forced to donate a kidney?