PHIL 102 Ben Hole W 9 L 5

AGENDA • Admin Questions? • Clicker Quiz • Marquis, Contraception Objection • Judith Jarvis Thomson: “A Defense of Abortion”

According to Thomson, most opposition to abortion relies on: A. merely religious B. C. D. E. F. arguments. the premise that the fetus is a person. the premise that killing is always wrong. an appeal to emotion. all of the above. none of the above.

What attitude does Thomson take toward the claim that a fetus is a person (with the right to life) from the moment of conception? A. she believes it is true, B. C. D. E. and uses it as an assumption. she believes it is true, but asks what would follow if it were false. she believes it is false, and ignores it. she believes it is false, but asks what would follow if it were true. none of the above.

The case of the violinist is meant to show that: A. abortion is always B. C. D. E. morally permissible. not everyone has a right to life. the right to life does not entail the right not to be killed. everyone has a right to the bare minimum needed to keep them alive. none of the above.

FINISH MARQUIS The Contraception Objection

A future like ours If X has a future like ours of great value and killing X deprives X of that future, then killing X is morally wrong. Implications: • A future like ours is a sufficient, but not necessary condition for presumptive moral standing. • It is seriously presumptively wrong to kill children and infants. • It is not the case that only biologically human life can have great moral worth, e. g. , intelligent animals/aliens. • It might be seriously wrong to kill some currently existing non-human mammals. • Does not entail that euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, and infanticide are morally wrong (in all cases).

The Contraception Objection If Marquis' view were true, then contraception would be wrong. But that's absurd. Marquis: • “the immorality of contraception is not entailed by the loss of a future like ours simply because there is no non-arbitrarily identifiable subject of the loss in the case of contraception …”

Do you agree with the Contraception Objection? A. Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Somewhat Agree D. Neutral E. Somewhat Disagree F. Disagree G. Strongly Disagree

DISCUSS THOMSON Judith Jarvis Thomson: “A Defense of Abortion”

Pope John Paul II “The Unspeakable Crime of Abortion” 1. A fetus is a person with the right to life. 2. It is morally wrong to kill a person with the right to life. 3. Therefore, it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. (Abortion is immoral. )

The Right to Life 1. A fetus is a person with the right to life. 2. It is morally wrong to kill a person with the right to life. 3. Therefore, it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. (Abortion is immoral. ) Rather, Thomson takes issue with the second premise.

The Right to Life 1. Either a fetus is a Thomson’s Main Argument person with the right to life or not. 2. If a fetus is a person, then abortion is not impermissible. 3. If a fetus is not a person, then abortion is not impermissible. 4. Either way, abortion is not impermissible.

The Right to Life • Premise Two: If a fetus is a person, then abortion is not impermissible. • When is it morally permissible to violate the right to life? Thomson’s Main Argument

The Violinist • Premise Two: If a fetus is a person, then abortion is not impermissible. • When is it morally permissible to violate the right to life? • Violinist Analogy

The Violinist “You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system is plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own … To unplug you would be to kill the him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. ”

Killing vs. Letting Die Say the violinist is putting too much strain on your kidneys … “If anything in the world is true, it is that you do not commit murder, you do not do what is impermissible, if you reach around to your back and unplug yourself from the violinist to save your life. ”

“If anything in the world is true, it is that you do not commit murder” A. Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Somewhat Agree D. Neutral E. Somewhat Disagree F. Disagree G. Strongly Disagree

Positive vs. Negative Rights Objection “‘everyone has a right to life, so the unborn person has right to life. ’” Response “In Thomson’s view, the right to life (the one we ascribe to persons) is not a positive right to receive whatever minimum aid is needed to preserve life – such as the use of someone’s kidneys or Henry Fonda’s cool hand” (B/B, 390). The right to life is merely a negative right.

Positive vs. Negative Rights Objection Response “In the most ordinary sort of case, to deprive someone of what he has the right to is just to treat him unfairly. ” “… suppose that, having learned that otherwise it means nine years in bed with that violinist, you unplug yourself from him. You surely are not being unjust to him, for you gave him no right to use your kidneys, and no one else can have given him such right. ” The right to life is merely a negative right.

Thomson’s Conclusion “Nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, or of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive. ” Thus, even if we assume the fetus is a person with the right to life, abortion is not morally impermissible, at least in many cases.