- 01 Apr 2021 18:13
#15164316
So we agree that the personhood of the fetus is unimportant in this case. The argument does not require seeing the fetus as “not a baby”.
This rebuttal seems apply more to keeping fetuses alive if they are still viable. No one is arguing that the fetuses should not be kept alive after being removed from the pregnant person.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...
anna wrote:"Leaving aside the contrived nature of the analogy,its key logical flaw lies in its failure to distinguish between killing and letting die. In the context at hand, this distinction corresponds closely to the difference between what might be called ordinary and extraordinary life-preserving measures, whether they take the form of healthcare or some other intervention.
Let me give a simple example to illustrate what I mean by ordinary vs. extraordinary life-preserving measures. If you have fainted on the train tracks, it would be admirable for me to dive in front of an on-coming train and sacrifice myself in order to knock you out of the way. But you are not entitled to have me perform this extraordinary act of heroism. If I do not dive in front of the train, no one would say that I was guilty of manslaughter. On the other hand, you probably would be entitled to my assistance if I am standing idly by and see you collapse hours before a train is in sight. Where exactly to draw the line between ordinary and extraordinary life-saving measures might be fuzzy, but the basic validity of the distinction should be readily apparent.
Having laid this groundwork, we can see that the “Right to Life” is a right not to be killed. It is not a right not to die. The reason that the woman in the story can sever the tubes without violating the violinist’s dignity is because he does not have a right not to die. The tubes are an extraordinary means of preserving his life, and he is not entitled to extraordinary life-saving measures. However, the woman may not stab the man in the heart and only then sever the tubes. In this case, she would be violating his dignity because he has a right not to be killed. This latter scenario most closely resembles an abortion, in which the fetus is ripped or burned to death while still in the womb and only then removed.
Now, why does the abortion procedure go to such great lengths to kill the fetus before removing him? In many early-term abortions, the procedure is simply easier, but not so in late-term abortions. The reason is instructive: leaving a prematurely born infant to die without providing basic care would be illegal, a violation of the infant’s right not to be killed."
So we agree that the personhood of the fetus is unimportant in this case. The argument does not require seeing the fetus as “not a baby”.
This rebuttal seems apply more to keeping fetuses alive if they are still viable. No one is arguing that the fetuses should not be kept alive after being removed from the pregnant person.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...