Rights at beginning of life Flashcards
What is the argument advocating for rights of the foetus?
Innocent human beings have a right not to be killed deliberately. All human foetuses are innocent human beings. Therefore, the foetus has a right not to be killed.
Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human foetus.
Therefore, abortion is always wrong.
What are the limitations of the argument advocating for rights of the foetus? (x4)
What is it about human life that makes it more valuable than other forms of life? If we say that a zygote has special value simply by being human, is this speciest? Is a zygote a human being with a right to life? Does a zygote have the same moral claim to life as a 5-year-old child?
What is the argument challenging the rights of the foetus?
Persons are individuals with self-awareness and autonomy. Only persons have a right to life. A human foetus is not a person. The human foetus does not have a right to life. Therefore, abortion is morally permissible – but not necessarily desirable.
What are the limitations of the argument challenging the rights of the foetus?
Neonates, young infant adults with severe mental disability lack self-awareness and autonomy. Therefore, according to this argument, these individuals should also not be considered persons. Therefore, they have no right to life. Therefore, infanticide and killing those with severe mental disability is morally permissible.
What are the ethical arguments regarding the rights and duties of pregnant women towards abortion?
As individuals, we have a right to choose what can happen to our bodies. A woman can therefore make an autonomous choice to have an abortion.
Rights of unborn child: we generally accept that the right to choose can be limited if the choices harm others. An abortion harms the foetus, so a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion can be refuted.
However, if a foetus isn’t a person, does killing a foetus constitute a legitimate harm?
What is the Thomson’s violinist argument on abortion?
Imagine you woke up and found a concert violinist attached to you. He is relying on your kidneys and lungs to stay alive. In 9-months time, his body will have recovered sufficiently for him to be removed from your body. Do you have a moral duty to keep the violinist attached to?
What are the arguments against abortion in the Thomson’s violinist argument, and how can these be refuted (x3)?
THOMSON’S VIOLINIST ARGUES THAT ABORTIONS ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE: The scenario argues that a foetus has the same right to life as an adult. It suggests that we have a duty not to kill deliberately and that it is a good thing to save those in need of rescue. Killing the violinist would deprive the world of hearing its talents, similar to how aborting a child will deprive the world of experiencing its potential.
WOMAN DOES NOT HAVE A MORAL DUTY TO CONTINUE PREGNANCY: we cannot have a duty to save everyone irrespective of the cost to ourselves.
Pregnancy is a significant physical burden and risk to the mother, and we do not have a moral duty to put our lives at risk or endure physical burdens to ‘save’ others – even if the foetus has a same right to life as an adult.
This argument also fails to consider that giving birth to an unwanted child carries a life-long burden of raising and investing in the child. Even if the child is then put up for adoption, it will likely cause emotional trauma for both mother and child. This is unlike the repercussions of detaching the violinist.
Considerations of arguments supporting abortion? (x3)
Even if abortion is morally permissible, this does not imply:
That abortion is morally a good thing.
That the foetus has no moral value.
That the mother has no obligations to the foetus.
What do arguments against abortion imply about maternal obligations to the foetus?
Implies that mother should behave in a way which is not harmful to the foetus: e.g. not smoking or drinking. Also includes NOT refusing C-section where natural birth risks the life of the baby e.g. pre-eclampsia.
What is the foetus’ position in the law?
The foetus has no legal rights until birth. The fact that a woman is pregnant does not affect her legal right in anyway. She can engage in any lawful behaviour that is harmful to the foetus e.g. smoking, and can refuse medical treatment including caesarean section even if it risks the life of the baby.
Paternal rights in relation to the abortion argument?
The father has a biological and emotional stake in a pregnancy.
Should he have a right to demand the pregnancy to continue?
Equally, should he have a right to not be a father?
How are paternal rights outlined in the law?
Once born, the father has legal responsibilities (child maintenance) to the child. However, the father has no legal rights during the pregnancy, and no legal right to request or veto an abortion, and no legal right to be consulted or informed of an abortion.
If there is conflict between maternal and paternal rights over an abortion, what does the law outline?
The father has no right to force/prevent an abortion in a woman. If the father had any right over a pregnancy in this way, these would have to be exercised through the mother’s body AGAINST HER WISHES. We do not permit non-consensual bodily interventions in other situations (even to save life of another adult e.g. organ donation), so the law prevents paternal intervention in abortions too (even if stopping an abortion would be seen as ‘saving a life’).
What is moral agency?
An individual’s ability to make moral judgements based on some notion of right or wrong.
Conflict between rights-based arguments and moral agency in the abortion argument?
Rights based arguments are persuasive but can create confrontation between different groups.
Rights potentially detract from moral agency and other important moral arguments which play an important role in the decision to have/not have an abortion.
