Up@dawn 2.0

Thursday, April 4, 2013

H1 Group 2 Thompson


Today my group had the pleasure of discussing Thompson. It was a very controversial topic that started off the discussion right away. Thompson compared abortion to the "unwanted violionist". She stated that abprting a baby is no different that cutting off life support from an incredibile violin player that you were unwillingly supporting. Our group basically all agreed that we do not believe that it is a fair connection between the two. It does not matter whether you support abortion or not, there are many better connections that could have been made.  Let me put in a disclaimer here: No one should be offended by what our discussion was about, I am simply restating what was said. This is a HIGHLY controversial topic and I do not wish to start a fight with anyone. Everyone is, however, entitled to their own opinions on the subject matter. Anyway, we statrted off by saying whether we believed in abortion or not. The specifics do not truly matter. We discussed the idea of an abortion in general. It was said that the idea of Thompsons logic was odd because no matter the precautions used when having sex, there is always a chance of conceiving a child. Yes there are other things that happen for a woman to become pregnant like rape. No matter your view on the matter, her views on the two situations being alike was a bit twisted.

To get off the touchy subject, we talked a bit about whether or not it was morally right to pull the "lever" that would save the 5 people from dying and only killing one. We all decided that if the one person alone was someone we knew and loved it would be extremely hard to pull the lever and watch them die while 5 strangers lived in return. I personally do not think I could personally stand and allow my family member or friend to die while 5 people I do not know get to live instead. We also said that this situation was extremely odd and there is no way we would actually be put in that situation. Therefore it is silly to even ponder what one would do in that situation.

D.Q: Is it wrong to allow someone to be put on life support knowing that you will eventually have to make the decision of whether or not to take them off and "kill" them?

11 comments:

  1. My thoughts on the issue of the unwanted violinist are very similar to yours. The two cases, ending aide to a dying violinist who was attached to you against your will compared to ending the life of your unborn baby, are different in this important way: the woman has a choice in the latter but not in the former.

    Thomson said that if a woman becomes pregnant after using contraception, then the baby does not have the right to use its mother's body for its survival. It is common knowledge that contraception is fallible. People know that going into the bedroom. The woman who consents to have sex does not have the excuse, "But I didn't have a choice in getting pregnant."

    The only "choice" that should be made by the woman is not whether to end her baby's life once she's pregnant, but whether to have sex in the first place. When a man and woman make the conscious choice to perform an act that brings about life, it makes sense that if life occurs, those who made it happen are responsible for it. Isn't that what we teach our children from a young age? "You are responsible for your actions." Why are people jettisoning this logic for new mothers and fathers who want to dispose of their mistake?

    When it comes to rape, here's an article that presents arguments I agree with.
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life005.html

    In the violinist example, you go to bed and wake up the next morning with someone hooked up to you. It is implied you'd be hooked up to the violinist for the rest of his or your life. Did you, before you went to bed, say, "I'm going to perform an act that may or may not result with me being hooked up to a dying violinist"? No? Then I believe you have every right to refuse him treatment for both of two reasons: 1) He was forced upon you, and 2) You did not create him.

    Thomson said letting the baby and violinist live would be acts of charity, not duty. I agree that letting the violinist live would be an act of extreme charity. However, sustaining a life you created with your partner is an act of the most sacred duty.

    A baby is in the womb of an American mother about 1% of her lifespan of around 80 years. Carrying for a short while a baby whom you made yourself, thereby providing the world with a new life is much different from hooking a man to your body forever, thereby hindering the contributions of two human beings for the rest of their lives.

    DQ: Do you think the thought experiment concerning the train is effective?

    FQ: What does John Lachs see as the ideal solution to get philosophy, which has cloistered itself in the university, more involved in the public arena?
    FA: The pre-eminent American Philosophical Association broadening its focus to include matters of public concern.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "A baby is in the womb of an American mother about 1% of her lifespan of around 80 years. Carrying for a short while a baby whom you made yourself, thereby providing the world with a new life is much different from hooking a man to your body forever, thereby hindering the contributions of two human beings for the rest of their lives. "

    All I'm going to say in the way of the abortion debate is that I love how centered we are around the baby in the womb but how we never talk about the mother and the child's life AFTER the birth.

    ...and in regards to rape and keeping the baby, well. I would not want to be the child of a mother who can't look at you without remembering the rape or seeing her attacker's face at the breakfast table.

    ...je suis fini on that subject.

    What I do want to address is:

    "We also said that this situation was extremely odd and there is no way we would actually be put in that situation. Therefore it is silly to even ponder what one would do in that situation. "

    This is exactly why thought experiments are so important--they are silly and ridiculous which is the point. You can debate the concepts at hand without having emotions and social constructs get in the way-- it's like Rawles's fairness through ignorance idea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I understand that not all unintentionally conceived children who are born into this world enter into the best circumstances, but that is why adoption exists: to put children into loving homes that have the ability to care for them when the parent(s) cannot. While not every adoption case is a happy one, I still believe it is better to give the child a chance instead of robbing it of any hope of living a healthy, happy life.

    For the mother, whether she was raped, just made a mistake, or could not provide for her baby, support from family, friends, churches, and so on — basically, people showing love to her — will help her deal with her circumstances.

    The link that I provided in my previous post says this:
    "psychological studies have shown that, when given the proper support, most pregnant rape victims progressively change their attitudes about their unborn child from something repulsive to someone who is innocent and uniquely worthwhile."

    Here's the link again:
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life005.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here is what I thought was a more accurate thought experiment:

    You give the violinist a tiny bit of poison that has the chance of causing his liver to fail. It's a tiny chance, and you tried really hard to make the chance go away by diluting the poison so much, but the chance is still there. And you know that. But like people have sex anyway although they know the potential consequences, you give him the poison, despite the chance of his liver failing. So in the small chance that his liver does fail, you're responsible. So, sure, in this situation it is your duty to keep him alive because you caused his liver to fail by poisoning him.

    No matter what contraceptives you use and how much you don't want a baby, the chance of becoming pregnant is there. And you know that when you choose to have sex. Your choice should be whether you engage in sex or not, not in whether you can kill the baby you created or not.

    I can almost see an argument for rape. I think adoption is a better option, because I still see abortion as murder, but I can still see the argument. However, this is a minuscule percentage of the amount of abortions per year. The statistics I found were that rape related abortions are 1% or less of the grand total of abortions per year. This is an irrelevant argument for saying that abortion should be legal. Even if it was 50%, I don't think across the board abortion for any reason you want should be allowed. I can see allowing exceptions for rape related abortions to be legal.. but abortion as birth-control is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Concerning the train thought experiment, I tend to agree with Matthew. Thought experiments are ridiculous by design, for it is meant to see if our ideas can stand the test of extremes. However, I do disagree somewhat with the premise of many moral thought experiments. They often simplify morality to a matter of two simple choices (pull the lever or don't), and at least in my experience, this does not really reflect reality. In reality, morality is not difficult because of its blunt simplicity, but because of its overwhelming complexity. There are often a myriad of options, versus either/or.

    I can force you to do something wrong if the only options are both wrong. This is a philosophical premise, but I do not think reality forces you to make a wrong decision. I think it is more likely that we choose to morally excuse ourselves by simplifying what choices we really do have.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I just want to know where the line in the sand for murder begins. If, like some, the definition is the point at which a fetus can live disconnected from the mother, why are people put on life support in old age? If there is viable life immediately upon conception, how can blatant murder be allowed? If it should be allowed for deformities, why are deformed children who are born and their congenital defects found out only later forced to continue living? Hitler took a similar stance, but I cannot imagine many people in agreement with his stance that weak links in society should be immolated.
    I believe any decision a person chooses should be lived with; meaning, if a person chooses to have sex he or she should live with the consequences of that decision. Rape cases and medical emergencies in which the mother has the potential to die are special cases in which the mother should have the decision, but otherwise I see no reason for abortion to be a viable option. Some ask the question, "Does a woman have an absolute right to determine what happens in and to her body?" If this stance is taken, then suicide would have to be legalized and a conjoined twin that possesses the organs that sustain their sibling would have the ability to literally cut off that person's life supply.

    http://www.spuc.org.uk/education/abortion/human-development

    FQ: Which philosopher rationalized abortion with an illustration about a violinist?
    A: Thomson
    DQ: Any of the questions above...

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think if a violinist was hooked up to me in the morning, it would depend on how cute or not he was for him to live. In short, I would probably kill the violinist, give my baby up for adoption, and kill the one person for the five!





    JK!!!!! I won't debate on the violinist and the abortion, but as for the thought experiment, I would say that the situations are different in the hospitaland on the train tracks because in the hospital it's one healthy person that would live anyways for five sick people, and on the train tracks, it's either one person WILL die or five people WILL die. See ya'll in class!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Erin Paul8:23 AM CDT

    I floated into this group for the discussion on the train. It is very hard to say exactly what we would do because luckily we've never been in that situation. I think it's important to remember that just sitting back and watching people get killed when you could do something to stop it is just as bad as pushing someone in front of a train. Granted in this situation, no matter what you do - nothing or pull the lever - people are going to die. Although this scenario is extremely unlikely, I do think some similar situations could easily occur. You're outside your house and some neighbor kids are playing in the street and a teenager comes flying through in his shiny new car.
    DQ: Would you jump in front of a moving car to save a group of children you don't know? What about an elderly lady?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Michele Kelley9:07 AM CDT

    I think that from reading all these comments it comes down to this. We never can say what we would do in the situation if we were put in it. The best solution is to not put ourselves in that situation, but as we all know life happens. I am not pro-choice by anymeans, but the thing is with these "Thought experiments" is it is like playing "would you rather". No choice is moral or good in these experiments.

    ReplyDelete
  10. DQ: Do we have an obligation as humans to help and save people?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I really dislike the thought experiments. I think they are all purposely distorted/twisted to make the people they are directed to be forced into a particular way of thinking. The violinist experiment is not fair for a variety of reasons. The first being that the person being “hooked” up to the violinist did not produce/conceive him. With a baby, it is a life that the mother has (hopefully) purposely chose to produce. And if not purposely, at lease much more personal than a violinist busting into your house and demanding your help. The train example is the same. It would obviously very hard to choose to indirectly kill anyone. This situation reminds me of the classic scene from superhereo movies. Time is running out, and two people and or groups of people have their lives in jeopardy. Who should the hero save? This will always be a tough choice to make.

    FQ: Who introduced the “unwanted violinist?”

    DQ: Are though experiments useful?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.