This question likely has its roots in the
Judith Jarvis Thompson’s abortion defense piece on the violinist. If you ask your buddy, he’ll likely say that the piece is where he got the idea. At any rate, there the question was, “If you were to awake after being abducted, strapped to a machine (for the foreseeable future) that was keeping a world-class violinist alive, would you have the right to unplug?”
Of course…the answer seems to be ‘Yes’.
Using this analogy, she then says that abortion is simply “unplugging” from the child, and therefore it’s OK. (In truth, it’s a sneaky application of the principle of double effect which when consistently applied does not implicate cases of abortion.)
Notice, also, that if you watch her tricks as she writes she says that you don’t have a right to bash in the violinist’s head. (“If someone threatens you with death unless you torture someone else to death, I think you have not the right, even to save your life, to do so. But the case under consideration here is very different.”)
Personally, I think latinmasslover has the right answer. Focus on what’s being done – burning with acid, dismemberment, etc., etc. It’s the intentional killing of an innocent human person. It’s
emphatically not “letting die” or “unplugging” or “not giving a kidney”.
Turn the question around. Ask him, “When is it ok to intentionally kill an innocent human being?”
Wrong answers:
#1. When it could save someone’s life. Reply: “So should we round-up and kill everyone with AIDS? It would surely save lives to eradicate the disease…why would that be wrong?” or perhaps, “Ok. So when do we start forcing the homeless to do organ donations?”
#2. When it could save many more lives. Reply: “So it’s all right for a lynch mob to kill an innocent if it looks like the lynch mob will only get worse without it?”
#3. When it’s not really a life. Reply: “Oh, I though we were talking science, not science fiction. I didn’t realize you were bringing the undead into this.
Actual biology only has two classifications - alive and dead. Is your unborn child already dead in your example?”
Right answer:
“It’s never morally permissible to intentionally kill an innocent human being.”
**
ADVICE:
Be aware of your words.
Intention **is important – negligence isn’t enough, and it’s not enough to intend something else with the death as an unavoidable and undesirable byproduct. **
Kill **is important – you’re not “letting die” or “unplugging”, you’re taking some positive action to end the innocent’s life. Like burning with acid or dismemberment.
**Innocent **is important – this doesn’t involve a death penalty discussion.
Finally,
human being is important – and it’s at its core a scientifically demonstrable reality.
Good luck, and God Bless,
RyanL
