long answer qs Flashcards
basic categories of abortion
therapeutic
spontaneous
what is spontaneous abortion
miscarriage, abt half of all fertilized eggs are aborted spontaneously
types of induced abortion
elective (not medically necessary)
therapeutic (medically necessary)
what is the violinst thought experiment
director of music attached you to a dying person while you were sleeping. your kidney is keeping him alive (against your will). unplugging yourself will kill him.
what premise does the violinist TE address
- a right to life outweights a right to decide what is done to one’s body
what does the violinist TE show
shows that this infringement on a pregnant person is a violation of their bodily auronomy, especially bc it is done without consent (ie. rape)
can those who oppose abortion on the ground make an exception for rape?
certainly. however ends up wiht the conclusion that those who came into existence because of rape has less of a right to life than others. people who oppose abortion do not make this exception
pregnant persons right to defend their life from a life threatening pregnancy
the fetus, being a person, has a right to life, but as the mother is a person, she has the right to life. presumably they have an equal right? we are told preforming the abortion would be directly killing the fetus, wheres doing nothing would only be ‘letting the mother die’
TE raframed: pregnant persons right to defend their life from a life threatening pregnancy?
imagine you are told you will be dead in a month because of the musician. but you have to stay where you are because unplugging yourself would be directly killing an innocent person, which is murder and is impermissable.
- however, it is not murder nor impermissable
permissability of third parties to secure abortion
in most cases a right to abortion may hinge on Drs willingness to perform it
TE: permissability of third parties to secure abortion
imagine you are in a tiny house with a rapidly growing child. in minutes you will be crushed. this child wont be crushed to death, it nothing is done it will be hurt but a free man.
- concedes that a third party cannot make the choice, both are innocent. but the person threatened can.
the mother OWNS the house, therefore no third party has a personal obligation however they can because it is the mothers choice since it is her house
what are virtue ethics
emphasizes the role of character/virtue in moral philosophy, as opposed to duty
thomson virtue ethics: non-rights based discussion of virtue and vice (two TE)
revisited violinist TE: suppose you only have to be connected for one hour. there was NO consent given, however it would be indecent to refuse. in fact, you ought to allow it to remain
revisited fonda TE:
fonda now in room. you had no right against him to fly in from the west coast and put his hand on your brow, but if you are in the same room he ought to
ought/right discourse
A ought to do something for B, follows that B has a right against that A do it for him. this makes the right turn on how easy it is to accomplish - this seems morally unacceptable
ought vs. right other example
if candy is only given to the older brother. the younger brother does not have a right to it, but it would be cruel if he doesnt share (in fact, he ought to). but in not sharing he is not being unjust.
decency vs rights conclusion
no one is morally required to make large sacrifices for 9 months in order to keep someone alive; in not doing so they may be self-centred but not unjust.
two non rights based dicussions of thomson?
- virtue and vice – rights vs. ought
- good vs. minimally decent samaritan
about ‘right’ to abortion (virtue ethics)
we must grant there may be cases where it would be morally indecent to abort, yet not a rights violation (eg. for a trip)
good vs. minimally decent samaritans
good samaritans = act altruistically, out of their way -> not morally required
minimally decent samaritans = act at no cost to themselves -> morally required
good vs. minimally decent samaritans connection to abortion
legal restrictions on abortion seem to require pregnant people to be good samaritans - if you think this way, you must require all people to be good samaritans otherwise this is an unjust burden on pregnant people.
- on the contrary, no one is even required by law to be a minimally decent samaritan
should pregnancies that require people to be a minimally decent samaritan be carried thru (according to thomson)
yes. you cannot abort to go on vcation for example
does thomson think all abortions are morally permissable
no.
what kind of abortion does marquis focus on?
elective abortion
what is marquis argument
argument that vast majority of deliberate abortions are seriously immoral.
How does Marquis critically discuss
some of the ambiguities and philosophical vulnerabilities of some common arguments in both
“pro-life” and “pro-choice” camps?
by focusing on public reasons, other reasons are either over or under inclusive
marquis: issues with pro-life/anti-abortion argument
will assert life is present from conception, fetuses ‘look like babies’, or possess characteristics necessary for being human.
will always have prima facie wrong to take a human life.
will have trouble bridging gap between biological/moral person.
marquis: issues with pro-choice argument
fetuses are not persons, rational agents or social beings.
only prima facie wrong to take the life of a member of human community.
will have trouble bridging gap between psychological/moral person.
pro life vs. pro choice final argument issues
pro life will want a principle that is far too broad (ie. wouldnt permit death of cancer cells).
pro choice will want a principle that is far too narrow (ie. doesnt explain why killing an infant is wrong)
what does marquis think about prolife and prochoice arguments (similarity)
all claims being made are accidental generalizations and do not touch on the essence of the matter.
what argument does marquis favour?
wrongfulness of killing.
what is wrongfulness of killing argument. (and what does it escape?)
killing is wrong because killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim – what makes killing any adult wrong is the loss of future.
- this argument escapes personhood.
what is in favour of wrongfulness of killing argument (3)
- explains why we regard killing as one of the biggest crimes - loss of victims future
- explains why terminal illness are bad - deprives of future
- implications: species inclusive, supports active euthanasia (on the premise they wouldnt have a FLO), explains why it is prima facie wrong to kill infants/children
issue w wrongfulness of killing – not thought by marquis
doesnt include folks w disabilities!
how does wrongfulness of killing connect with induced abortion?
elective abortions are impermissible under wrongfulness of killing because they deny a future for the victim (fetus in this case)
What accounts of the wrongfulness
of killing does he reject (describe them) and why?
- desire account
- discontinuization account
desire account: rejected
doesnt explain why killing those who lack a desire to live, however temporarily (eg. comatose, suicide) is wrong
discontinuization account: rejected
prioritizes past. future should obviously matter more.
what does marquis fail to include in his account?
doesnt talk about therapeutic abortion or the rights of the gestating person
doctrine of informed consent
patients have the right (autonomy) to make their own medical decisions, even if unadvisable
what are three justifications for doctrine of informed consent as discussed by Flanigan
- consequential
- epistemic
- normative authority
doctrine of informed consent: consequential
medical outcomes will be better if physicians are prohibited from coercing/lying to patients
doctrine of informed consent: epistemic
patients are the experts of what they want (removes paternalism)
doctrine of informed consent: normative authority
patients have normative authority to make medically inadvisable decisions, even if they are not in their best interest.
- appeal to bodily rights, dignity and commitment to moral equlity
what justification does flanigan think is strongest (she does not favour one)
normative authority