PHIL 2003C 1st Edition Lecture 22Outline of Last Lecture I: Abortion continuedOutline of Current LectureII: Judith ThompsonIII: Violinist/ Justin Bieber CaseIV: Extreme ViewCurrent LectureII: Judith ThompsonJudith Jarvis Thomson- A defense of abortion“it would be indecent in the woman to request an abortion, and indecent in a doctor to perform it, if sheis in her seventh month, and wants the abortion just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad” ---What is indecent?? Does that mean it is immoral? So she begins by going to the heart of the matter:“Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception.”P1: The fetus is a personP2: every person has a right to lifeP3: a right to one’s body does not outweigh the right to one’s lifeC2: The fetus, therefore, must not be killed; no abortionTo begin, we start with pregnancies from rape:These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.It may seem obvious that in such cases abortion should be allowed (even despite the fetus’ rights, which were just granting for the sake of argument). If it doesn’t seem obvious to you, consider the following thought experiment:III: Violinist/ Justin Bieber CaseImagine director of hospital tells you when you wake up “look, were sorry they did this to you- we wouldn’t have permitted it if we’d known, but still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for 9 months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.” What would you do???If that doesn’t convince you, consider:Imagine you’d have to be hooked up for the rest of your life! Now that does seem crazy! Yeah he’s got a right to life, but it doesn’t mean you have an obligation to do this…Okay.. what about life threatening pregnancies?IV: Extreme ViewFirst we don’t have a clash of “right to life” with “right to body”. In this case, the mother’s right to life is on the line, too- not merely her right to do with her body what she wants. Therefore, different argument.(killing someone vs. letting that person die)Might explain that extra premise in a number of ways:1: directly killing an innocent person is always and absolutely impermissible2:Directly killing an innocent person is murder and murder is always and absolutely impermissible3: One’s duty to refrain from directly killing an innocent person is more stringent than one’s duty to keep a person from dyingP1: abortion is the direct killing of an innocent person(fetus) P2: directly killing an innocent person is always impermissibleC1: So abortions are impermissible-even when mother’s life is on the
View Full Document