Abortion Question, Violinist

  • Thread starter Thread starter user1234
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pietrocontolini said:
I guess my question then is why is unplugging yourself (an active action) different. What if the violinist was the son of the woman? Would she ten have a obligation? Why is the Ru-486 pill different, if it just disconnects the embryo?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you might examine what I have written addressing these question? If the answers appear flawed, point it out and I’ll see if I can further clarify.
 
Rau said:
I see. And of what are you trying to persuade your readers?
Click to expand...
That abortion is wrong. But I came across this argument, and cannot answer it in cases of rape, where an ru-486 pill would disconnect the child, which is a question that people are ignoring in this thread!
 
Rau said:
Perhaps you might examine what I have written addressing these question? If the answers appear flawed, point it out and I’ll see if I can further clarify.
Click to expand...
My question is that if unplugging yourself fromm the violinist is passively letting him die, why is an ru-486 pill actively killing a child. They both take support away. So it seems that they must both be wrong, or both be right. I thought the Catholic position was it is morally acceptable to unplug from the violinist, so shouldn’t it also be from the child? (I understand that this would only apply in cases of rape)
 
pietrocontolini said:
That abortion is wrong. But I came across this argument, and cannot answer it in cases of rape, where an ru-486 pill would disconnect the child, which is a question that people are ignoring in this thread!
Click to expand...
It was not ignored - an earlier post was direct solely to that point. The child is in her natural state of development and no one has a right to an act which by its very nature intends her death. And for that child, willfully disconnecting is willing death. This is true whether sex was consensual or otherwise. There is no possibility of restoring the situation prior to the assault by the rapist.

The violinist is in a contrived state in which another person has been compelled, against will to render extreme aid to improve the persons pre-existing circumstance. The situation prior to that assault can be restored, and by a means which is not itself immoral. The wrong that was done is undone, leaving the violinist in just the condition he was prior to the wrong.
 
Rau said:
It was not ignored - an earlier post was direct solely to that point. The child is in her natural state of development and no one has a right to an act which by its very nature intends her death. This is true whether sex was consensual or otherwise. There is no possibility of restoring the situation prior to the assault by the rapist.

The violinist is in a contrived state of in which another person has been compelled, against will to render extreme aid. The situation prior to that assault can be restored, and by a means which is not itself immoral. The wrong that was done is undone, leaving the violinist in just the condition he was prior to the wrong.
Click to expand...
Ok, thank you. I didn’t understand that from your previous posts. Sorry for my confusion
 
pietrocontolini said:
Onto my question. I was researching arguments against abortion from r a speech I had to write for my English class. There was one argument though that I cannot seem to answer. It is Thomson’s violinist argument.
Click to expand...
There is no need for such a complex example. If someone is in need of a blood transfusion and you (in general) are the only one available to provide that blood, you are under no obligation to volunteer to give blood. Even if you might be responsible for the person’s condition. Our “ownership” of our body and bodily resources is so strong that not even our corpse can be harvested for parts (unless we give prior permission), even if those parts would be necessary to help someone else to survive.

Side note: Instead of blood you can use plasma or bone marrow, or any other renewable bodily resources. Also we can live with one kidney, but that does not mean that you should be compelled to give up one of your kidneys to save someone else’s life.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
There is no need for such a complex example. If someone is in need of a blood transfusion and you (in general) are the only one available to provide that blood, you are under no obligation to volunteer to give blood. Even if you might be responsible for the person’s condition. Our “ownership” of our body and bodily resources is so strong that not even our corpse can be harvested for parts (unless we give prior permission), even if those parts would be necessary to help someone else to survive.

Side note: Instead of blood you can use plasma or bone marrow, or any other renewable bodily resources. Also we can live with one kidney, but that does not mean that you should be compelled to give up one of your kidneys to save someone else’s life.
Click to expand...
Vera, if a child is drowning in a lake, and a woman standing by the lake would be able to rescue the child if she were to swim out to him, should she be expected to? Should she be held liable/guilty if instead she says, “I really don’t want my body to get wet” and so decides instead to watch him drown? This is not an analogy for abortion; I’m just genuinely curious what your take on this would be. In other words, in your opinion, is the right to do what we want with our bodies absolute or might there be certain things we should be compelled to do (or not do) for some greater good.
 
nodito said:
Vera, if a child is drowning in a lake, and a woman standing by the lake would be able to rescue the child if she were to swim out to him, should she be expected to? Should she be held liable/guilty if instead she says, “I really don’t want my body to get wet” and so decides instead to watch him drown? This is not an analogy for abortion; I’m just genuinely curious what your take on this would be. In other words, in your opinion, is the right to do what we want with our bodies absolute or might there be certain things we should be compelled to do (or not do) for some greater good.
Click to expand...
Since your question has nothing to do with the abortion, it might even merit a separate thread. But since you asked it here, I will answer here. 🙂 Simply put: “NO, we do not have an absolute dominion over our bodies.” As usual, the devil is in the details.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
Since your question has nothing to do with the abortion, it might even merit a separate thread. But since you asked it here, I will answer here. 🙂 Simply put: “NO, we do not have an absolute dominion over our bodies.” As usual, the devil is in the details.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it had nothing to do with abortion; I wouldn’t have posted the question here if I didn’t think it relevant to the conversation.

So you agree, like most Americans, that a person can not just watch a child drown when it is possible to save the child, correct? Why? Is it that the sacrifice required is so inconsequential or that the stakes for the child are so high?
 
nodito said:
I didn’t say it had nothing to do with abortion; I wouldn’t have posted the question here if I didn’t think it relevant to the conversation.
Click to expand...
The word you used were: “This is not an analogy for abortion…” . I took your words seriously. My mistake, I guess. 🙂
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
The word you used were: “This is not an analogy for abortion…” . I took your words seriously. My mistake, I guess. 🙂
Click to expand...
No, you were correct to take my words at face value. I was not making an analogy to abortion. But I do think bodily autonomy is central to the conversation so I was using a different example to distill your opinion on what constitutes autonomy and whether it can ever be “violated”.
a·nal·o·gy - a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
“an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies”
  • a correspondence or partial similarity.
    “the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia”
    a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
    “works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature”
Click to expand...
 
nodito said:
No, you were correct to take my words at face value. I was not making an analogy to abortion. But I do think bodily autonomy is central to the conversation so I was using a different example to distill your opinion on what constitutes autonomy and whether it can ever be “violated”.
Click to expand...
If you wish to have a conversation about bodily autonomy, it should be in its own thread. If you start one, I will be interested.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
If you wish to have a conversation about bodily autonomy, it should be in its own thread.
Click to expand...
Why? Isn’t it kind of central to a conversation about the violinist argument? Wasn’t it also the topic of your post #28?
 
We exist as bodies. Clearly, bodily autonomy has many limitations as an idea pertinent to gauging the wrongs and rights of behaviour.
 
nodito said:
Why? Isn’t it kind of central to a conversation about the violinist argument? Wasn’t it also the topic of your post #28?
Click to expand...
Yet, it would be a distraction from the main topic. And that is just ill-advised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top