abortion Flashcards
why isn’t Marquis’ Future Like Ours (FLO) argument a potentiality argument?
potentiality argument:
- the mother has property (P), which confers some right (R).
- a fetus has the ‘potential’ for (P), so they also have some (R).
a 4 year old has the potential to have the ‘property’ of being 18, but that doesn’t mean that the 4 year old has the right to vote. Marquis argues that a fetus already has a FLO- just like us. it’s not potentiality because the fetus doesn’t potentially have a FLO, it already has it.
briefly describe Thompson’s violinist case.
you’ve been kidnapped in your sleep by the society of music lovers. they’re trying to save a violinists life who has a rare blood type and you’re a match. you have to stay attached for 9 months to save his life. while the violinist has the right to life, he doesn’t have the right to your body. (more so in cases of rape)
(argument by analogy)
problem can be relevant disanalogies, analogies that are supposed to be similar but there’s a huge unsimilarity that could undermine the whole argument
murder argument against abortion
abortion is murder and since murder is wrong, abortion is wrong. but this argument begs the question- i.e. it assumes the conclusion (that murder is wrong) in its premise that abortion is murder. since murder is just wrongful or immoral, it isn’t a premise that the pro choice side would accept.
right to body abortion argument
argument relies on the claim that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants to her body, but it’s not quite right. it seems immoral for a woman to drink or heavily smoke while pregnant. it would also seem immoral to do something that would intentionally harm the fetus, and abortion is intentionally harming the fetus.
alas, a woman is not morally permitted to do whatever she wants to her body.
the humanness abortion argument
claims that a fetus is a human and so has a right to life. by itself, this argument won’t work, it’s a case of ‘speciesism’. we happen to think we’re special because we’re human, but that argument is too quick. an argument that explains our inherent value, however (I.g. created in gods image) would make for a different, stronger argument.
some philosophers (e.g. Michael Tooley) have argued that a fetus is not a person, so it doesn’t have a right to life. what’s the problem with this so-called personhood account?
personhood accounts end up being too broad or narrow. Tooleys argument was too narrow. Tooley holds that a person is a subject of conscious experience and is capable of desiring to continue to exist as a subject of experiences. but this excludes young children, severely mentally disabled people, long term coma patients, and potential people that are asleep.
Tooley’s Supercat Argument
Suppose there was a chemical that could be injected into a kitten that would cause it to become a Supercat. A Supercat has all the cognitive capacities of an adult human. Since any kitten could be injected, they all have a right to life.
according to marquis, what makes premature death such a bad thing?
not loss of life or suffering of friends and family….it’s the loss of future goods of consciousness-> can include anything we value (friendship, happiness)
In favor of the FLO argument
it makes intuitive sense
it explains why murder is such a heinous act
it gets a lot of cases right:
-can capture the permissibility of euthanasia
-allows us to respond properly to suicidal people
-can handle patients in comas
against the FLO argument
a fetus has no interests so it has no moral standing
-nether does a coma patient but they still have a right to life
it seems like killing an 18 year old is worse than killing a fetus. what does FLO say?
-murder is murder no matter the age.
Tooley’s personhood account
- being a subject of experiences and other mental states
- being capable of desiring to exist as a subject of experience and other mental states
………too narrow argument. excludes persons up to age 5/6, coma patients, and potentially people that are asleep.
