Pro-Choice Arguments
Summary
TLDRThe script explores two pro-choice arguments on abortion. The first, 'right to life does not generate obligation,' is illustrated by Judith Jarvis Thompson's thought experiment, suggesting a woman is not morally obligated to sustain a fetus's life. The second argument, 'no valuable future,' posits that fetuses lack unified consciousness, making abortion not as wrong as killing a person. Challenges to these views are also discussed, emphasizing the complexity of the abortion debate.
Takeaways
- 📚 The speaker introduces two pro-choice arguments: one that abortion is permissible even if the fetus has a right to life, and another that fetuses do not have a right to life.
- 🤔 The 'right to life does not generate obligation' argument challenges the assumption that if a fetus has a right to life, it obligates others to sustain it.
- 🎻 Judith Jarvis Thompson's 'violinist' thought experiment is used to illustrate that one's right to life does not impose an obligation on another to use their body to sustain that life.
- 🤰 The argument suggests that a woman's consent to sex does not equate to consent to pregnancy, challenging the idea that she has a special obligation to a fetus.
- 🚫 The 'no V-flow' argument posits that killing is wrong because it takes away a valuable future, which is not present in zygotes, embryos, and fetuses due to the lack of unified consciousness.
- 🧠 The unified consciousness, which is necessary for valuing a future, is not present in early stages of fetal development, suggesting that abortion at these stages is not morally wrong in the same way as killing a person.
- 🤷♀️ The speaker acknowledges that while abortion may not be wrong because of the 'wrongness of killing,' it can be wrong for other reasons, such as cruelty or an inappropriate understanding of motherhood.
- 👶 The argument does not prove that killing a zygote, embryo, or fetus is morally acceptable, but rather that it is not wrong in the same way as killing a person with a unified consciousness.
- 💡 The speaker concludes that abortion can be morally complex and context-dependent, with potential wrongness arising from factors other than the act of killing a fetus.
Q & A
What is the main argument presented by Judith Jarvis Thompson in her paper on abortion?
-Judith Jarvis Thompson argues that even if fetuses have a right to life, it does not necessarily create an obligation for a pregnant woman to sustain that life. This is based on the premise that a right to life does not generate a right to someone else's body to sustain that life.
What is the 'violinist argument' and how does it relate to the discussion on abortion?
-The 'violinist argument' is a thought experiment by Judith Jarvis Thompson where she imagines a scenario where a person wakes up attached to a famous violinist to save their life. The argument suggests that even though the violinist has a right to life, it doesn't morally obligate the person to sustain the violinist's life against their will, thus paralleling the idea that a pregnant woman should not be obligated to carry a fetus to term.
How does Thompson's argument apply to cases of rape?
-Thompson's argument is particularly relevant to cases of rape because it suggests that the woman did not willingly or knowingly create a life and therefore should not have a special obligation to sustain the life of the fetus. The 'violinist argument' is used to illustrate that being connected to another life without consent does not impose a moral obligation to continue sustaining it.
What is the counterargument to Thompson's 'right to life does not generate obligation' argument?
-One counterargument is that by engaging in sexual intercourse, a woman understands the potential consequences, including the creation of a life, and thus may have a special obligation to that life. This suggests that the act of sex implies a tacit agreement to the potential responsibilities that come with it.
What is the 'no V flow argument' and how does it relate to the moral permissibility of abortion?
-The 'no V flow argument' posits that killing is wrong because it takes away a valuable future, which is only possessed by beings with unified consciousness. Since zygotes, embryos, and fetuses lack this unified consciousness, it is argued that killing them does not deprive them of a valuable future like ours, and therefore, abortion may not be morally wrong in the same way as killing a person with unified consciousness.
How does the concept of 'unified consciousness' play a role in the 'no V flow argument'?
-In the 'no V flow argument', 'unified consciousness' is used to differentiate between beings that have a valuable future and those that do not. It is suggested that only beings with this consciousness can value anything, and since fetuses do not exhibit organized brain activity indicative of unified consciousness until a certain stage of development, their destruction does not carry the same moral weight as killing a person with such consciousness.
What is the potential issue with the 'no V flow argument' as it pertains to infanticide?
-The potential issue with the 'no V flow argument' is that if it is accepted that the absence of unified consciousness justifies the permissibility of abortion, it could also be used to argue for the permissibility of infanticide, which is generally considered morally wrong. This highlights a possible inconsistency in the argument's application.
How does the speaker suggest that abortion might be wrong in ways other than the wrongness of killing?
-The speaker suggests that abortion might be wrong due to factors such as a person's lack of an appropriate sense of awe, acting cruelly, wrongly assessing the value of motherhood, or having an inappropriate understanding of disabilities. These factors could make an abortion decision morally questionable, even if the act of killing a fetus is not inherently wrong.
What is the speaker's conclusion regarding the morality of abortion based on their dissertation?
-The speaker concludes that abortion is not inherently wrong because killing zygotes, fetuses, or embryos is wrong, but it can often be wrong for other reasons, which may vary on a case-by-case basis. They also mention that sometimes, not having an abortion might be wrong if bringing a child into existence would cause significant hardship.
What is the significance of the speaker's mention of the potential moral obligations of a doctor who gives a drug to a violinist?
-The speaker uses the example of a doctor who gives a drug to a violinist to illustrate that creating a dependency or ensuring someone's life does not automatically impose an ongoing obligation to sustain that life. This is relevant to the discussion on abortion as it challenges the idea that a woman who becomes pregnant has a moral obligation to continue the pregnancy simply because she was responsible for the conception.
Outlines
🤔 The Permissibility of Abortion Despite Fetal Rights
The paragraph discusses two types of pro-choice arguments regarding abortion. The first argument, called the 'right to life does not generate obligation' argument, suggests that even if a fetus has a right to life, it does not impose an obligation on others to sustain that life. The speaker references Judith Jarvis Thompson's influential paper, which challenges the assumption that a right to life inherently creates a duty not to kill. Thompson introduces a thought experiment involving a violinist to illustrate her point that one's right to life does not equate to a right to another's body or resources. The argument is nuanced, considering cases of rape and the implications of consent and autonomy in the context of pregnancy.
👶 Autonomy and the Limits of Obligation in Pregnancy
This paragraph delves into the implications of the 'right to life does not generate obligation' argument, specifically addressing the小提琴家' thought experiment. The speaker argues that the violinist's right to life does not morally obligate an unwilling individual to be connected to them for an extended period. The discussion extends to the idea that a woman's decision to have sex does not equate to a consent to bear a child, drawing parallels to other situations where consent can be withdrawn. The paragraph also raises the question of whether creating a life gives one a special obligation to sustain it, using the example of a doctor who saves a life but is not obligated to provide ongoing life support.
🧠 The Lack of a Valuable Future in Early Stages of Life
The final paragraph presented introduces the 'no valuable future flow' argument, which posits that killing is wrong because it deprives an individual of a valuable future. The argument is applied to zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, suggesting that since they lack unified consciousness, their destruction does not deprive them of a valuable future. The speaker discusses the biological perspective that cells are regularly replaced in the body, but it is the unified consciousness that gives value to life. The paragraph concludes by suggesting that while abortion may not be wrong because of the lack of wrongness in killing at early stages, it can still be wrong for other reasons, such as cruelty or a lack of appreciation for the value of life.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Pro-choice
💡Right to life
💡Violinist argument
💡Autonomy
💡Unified consciousness
💡Zygote, embryo, and fetus
💡Moral obligation
💡Personhood
💡Consent
💡Hardship
Highlights
Introduction of two pro-choice arguments: one posits that abortion is permissible even if the fetus has a right to life, and the other argues that abortion is permissible because fetuses don't have a right to life.
The 'right to life does not generate obligation' argument challenges the assumption that if fetuses have a right to life, there is a duty not to kill them.
Judith Jarvis Thompson's influential paper on abortion, which introduced a new perspective on the debate.
The 'violinist' thought experiment by Thompson to illustrate the argument that a right to life does not impose an obligation on others to sustain that life.
Critique of the violinist argument, suggesting it may apply more to cases of rape where the pregnancy was not consented to.
Argument that consent to sex does not equate to consent to pregnancy, using the analogy of a money clip left on a table.
Discussion on whether previous decisions, like consenting to sex, create an obligation to carry a child.
The 'no V-flow' argument, which claims that killing is wrong because it takes away a valuable future, but fetuses lack the unified consciousness to have such a future.
Biological perspective on the 'no V-flow' argument, noting that cells in the human body are replaced but the unified consciousness persists.
Challenge to the 'no V-flow' argument, pointing out that it might not be wrong to kill a zygote, embryo, or fetus, but this does not mean it is morally right.
The potential for abortion to be wrong not because killing a fetus is wrong, but for other reasons such as cruelty or inappropriate valuation of life.
The possibility that not having an abortion could be wrong if bringing a child into existence would cause significant hardship.
Conclusion that abortion is not inherently wrong because of the act of killing a fetus, but can be wrong for various other reasons on a case-by-case basis.
The importance of considering the context and individual circumstances when evaluating the morality of abortion.
Transcripts
I'm going to present to you two kinds of
pro-choice arguments still just two
arguments like I did with the pro-life
but two kinds and I'm gonna call the
first the abortion is permissible even
if the fetus has a right to life
argument I'm going to call it the right
to life does not generate obligation
argument still not a good name uh but
that's what I'm gonna call it and then
I'm going to talk about the idea that
abortion is permissible because fetuses
don't have a right to life so one says
that even if fetuses have a right to
life abortion is still okay and the
other says that um abortion is okay
because fetuses do not have a right to
life so let me talk about the first one
uh first the right to life does not
generate an obligation argument and what
I'm really doing here is I'm taking the
idea of an argument by a very famous uh
pro-life argument by Judith Jarvis
Thompson she had a really interesting
paper I think it was 74 but it might
have been a little before that I'm not
sure
um but a really interesting paper on
abortion what everybody had been doing
to that point is arguing over whether or
not fetuses have a right to life and
that it was just assumed that if fetuses
have a right to life then there's an
obligation not to there's a duty not to
kill them
um and
uh Thompson
agreed that fetuses did not have a right
to lie but she said well what if I
assumed for the sake of argument that
fetuses do have a right to life I think
even if I assume that which I don't
believe I can argue that abortion is
still permissible and so she comes out
with this uh article and it really
changed a lot of the way that people
thought about abortion especially in
cases of rape
um
but it had kind of long reaching effects
people's when you read on abortion
um it will always be included in that
discussion this article this argument
um you might have heard it referred to
as the violinist argument and you'll see
why in a little bit but let me just kind
of give you the version of it uh what
she says it's not exactly how she puts
it but something like this
um the right to life does not generate
an obligation argument so the argument
goes something like this a right to life
does not generate a an obligation
um for someone else to say in that life
or the way I have it in my notes a right
to life does not generate a right to
someone else's body to sustain that life
so if you have a right to life that
doesn't mean you have a right to
somebody else's body in order to sustain
that life or anything that has a right
to life doesn't have necessarily have a
right to use somebody else's body to
sustain that life so that's the first
premise the second premise it just says
so even if a fetus has a right to life
it does not follow that a pregnant woman
has an obligation to offer her body to
sustain that life so she says a right to
life does not generate an obligation for
somebody else to sustain that life so
even if a fetus has a right to life it
doesn't create an obligation on a
pregnant woman to sustain that life
how does she support this really
interesting thought experiment she's
she's great or she was great she passed
away unfortunately she was great about
these cool thought experiments and weird
thought experiments that she has in this
particular article has a lot of very
strange ones and that wasn't the only in
her career either but
um so she has one of the weird thought
experiments that she has is called the
violinist argument and what she says is
imagine that you and it's important
that's you it's nobody else it's you go
to sleep tonight and you wake up and you
find yourself attached to all these
medical tubes and stuff like this
remember this in the 70s
um to a famous violinist a very good
violinist overnight the society for
Musicians music lovers
um discovered that
the violinist was definitely ill and
um only you would be a match for
sustaining that violinist life and so
they attached to these tubes and if you
stay there for nine months and let that
person's blood pass through your kidneys
or whatever however it works your body
keeps them alive nine months then he'll
be okay and he can be separated at that
time
jar uh Thompson argues that it's not
clear that the violinists right to life
which he clearly has a right to life
just like you and me the violinist has a
right to life it's not clear that that
violinist right to life
um creates an obligation on you to
sustain that life it's nice of you to do
that it would be great of you to stay
hooked up to that guy for nine months
and and
um get him better but you have things to
do right you have families and stuff
like that
um and if nine months just sounds like
well okay yeah that's that sucks but I
would do it uh she said well extend that
then say it's nine years right she was
May say nine months because it was
um the the idea of pregnancy to say it
was nine years
um
you know I have grandkids and um and
people in my life that I and I got a job
and all of those things and I can't be
strapped to this person for nine years
um it would be nice of me true and nice
of you true to stay hooked up to this
person but you have goals you're at
college presumably because you have a
goal of graduating and working and doing
all those things and you can't do that
attached to this person and so the idea
here with the violin is now again you
might think there's a difference between
nine months nine years and all that kind
of stuff but again the idea is that just
because
we could keep extending that 90 years
whatever you want but at some point I
think most people would agree that that
person's right to life
while it's real doesn't override your
right to autonomy to choose what to do
with your body that you don't have to
you know it's nice of you it's great of
you to stay hooked up to the person but
it's not required morally required for
you to do that it would be a good thing
for you to do that but it's not morally
required that's the idea think about 20
years or whatever again the violinist
has a right to life but it's not clear
that you have a obligation to sustain
that life now
so it the the violentist example is
supposed to just prove that point that
one point that's all it's supposed to do
the violence example is supposed to
prove that a right to life doesn't
create an obligation on somebody else to
sustain it and she has these other
things that are really interesting you
know so like
um she said she has a sickness that only
the cool Touch of Henry Fonda you
wouldn't know that uh updated with I
don't know Chris Pine probably for most
of you that's uh all the Chris's are too
old too but whoever Harry Styles whoever
kids these days like I don't know right
uh you know just even if it's only his
healing touch only his touch on his head
uh on your head would heal you it would
be nice of that person to travel across
the United States and touch you on the
head but they don't have an obligation
to do that right so a right to life
doesn't necessarily create an obligation
on somebody else that's just to sustain
your life now a problem for this is
probably obvious to you
um people say look a woman who has
intercourse understands that intercourse
can lead sex can lead to the generation
of a life and they argue that because
the woman through her actions generated
the life she has a special obligation to
that life and the violinist case if it
is successful at all would apply in
cases of rape right because uh you went
to sleep and were plugged into it
against your will so um that would be in
the case of pregnancy because of rape
that would make sense because that
person's right to life the fetus is
Right to Life you didn't do anything
consciously that created that life and
so you don't have any special
obligations to it right
um so some people have pointed out that
it makes a lot of sense in the case of
rape but maybe not in anything else now
there are some responses to that too uh
for one thing it's not clear that
agreeing to have sex with somebody is
agreeing to carry a child if one is
produced
um so imagine so I always have a problem
uh with my wallet in my pocket you know
it hurts my back and something like that
and so say instead of carrying wallets I
carry money clips and I just so happen
to have gone to the bank to because we
send money to Peru and I have a ton of
money that I don't usually have in my
wallet right now but and so it's really
thick and heavy and it's not usually
thick and heavy I don't usually carry a
lot of money around but anyway it has a
lot and it hurts my back right and let's
say that I didn't have a while I just
had a money clip and so I just put it on
the table and um that's usually what we
do you know at a restaurant when we
leave a tip and I walk away and realize
oh no I didn't mean to do that and so um
just because I put money on the table
and forgot to pick it up it might be
uncomfortable
um for me to go back and and tell a
waiter no that's not your tip I need it
back but it doesn't seem like just
because I made a decision like that when
I didn't intend to give it uh just
because I because I didn't intend to
give it as tip it doesn't mean now I'm
obligated to go through with it so a
person who has sex and doesn't intend
um to have a child it doesn't seem like
that should obligate them then to go
through with that
um also it's not clear that one a person
signs away their autonomy by previous
decisions so I need to come up with a
better example of this I apologize if
this offends anybody and this one was on
my mind because I watched this
documentary on porn and um and they one
of the scenes was really really brutal
and the camera people like walked away
from it
um
because it was supposed to be this
violent scene but anyway so let's say
that there's a porn actress who agrees
consents to uh a like rough stimulated
um violent uh sex act
um but then as she's going through with
it
um says you know what this is too much I
mean I saw the videos and you guys told
me were honest with me what was going on
but this is just too much it brings up
too many memories or whatever I don't
want to do it right it's not like you
can say no you committed to doing this
and so you know we're gonna do whatever
that that would be rape right
um at that point
so even though she agreed and consented
to it at the time you know she could
lose her contractual obligations and all
that kind of stuff right but what she
did but just because she agreed to it
doesn't mean that she has an obligation
then to go through it so even if
somebody was having sex with the
intention of having a child it doesn't
seem like that creates an obligation for
them then to go through with having a
child because maybe once she experiences
it maybe the situations have changed
um maybe a partner's left or something
like that
um maybe once she experienced it says no
this was more than I handle uh I I you
know took into account just like the the
porn actress and so it doesn't look like
our commitments beforehand always create
an obligation to follow through with
those right and then lastly a problem
that says it's not clear that one has an
obligation to provide for another
another person's needs when they're
responsible for that person's existence
so we say hey there's a special
obligation the mom you know she had sex
and so you know she knew what could
happen but even if we are responsible
for somebody being alive it doesn't seem
that we do in many cases have an
obligation to sustain that life right so
imagine that there is a doctor who gives
the violinist a drug that will keep him
alive for 10 years but after he'll need
the doctor's kidneys and only the
doctor's kidneys it doesn't seem like
the doctor would be obligated then to
give that person use of the kidneys even
though he's responsible for him being
alive because he gave him the drug right
and so just
um just
giving the person life or ensuring that
they had life doesn't seem like you have
an obligation to sustain that life all
right so that is uh kind of Thompson's
argument and some problems and some
ideas about that I'm going to try to say
a little bit or get started on the no V
flow argument so the no V flow argument
goes from Marcus's argument because I
think there's something right about it
right
and it says killing is wrong because it
takes away one's valuable future like
ours
only the second premise only something
with the unified Consciousness has a
valuable future like ours zygotes
embryos and fetuses do not have a
unified Consciousness therefore killing
zygous and embryos and fetuses does not
take away a valuable future like ours
and so it doesn't capture the wrongness
of killing so there's nothing wrong with
it doesn't say there's something right
with it just says there's nothing wrong
with uh killing them and for support of
this somebody might point out that
biology doesn't have a v flow like we
talked about before every cell in the
human body I think maybe there's a
couple that are sticky but most every
cell in the human body is replaced
several times within an average life
what survives though is that unified
Consciousness that Consciousness that
you see yourself as an individual as as
a whole and that's the only thing that
can value anything at all and so that's
the only thing that has a valuable
future the brain can't sustain a unified
Consciousness in a zygote embryo fetus
there's no organized brain activity you
don't see Alpha Beta delta waves until
about 25 to 32 weeks depending on
um and there's no clear indication of a
unified Consciousness until at least 18
months after birth now that creates a
whole other problem right
um so uh it looks like the romness of
killing isn't in that right and so it
wouldn't be wrong to have an abortion
because the wrongness of killing
um the conditions for the wrongness of
killing aren't there this unified
Consciousness now uh this doesn't prove
the problem for this is that it doesn't
prove that killing a zygote embryo fetus
is okay it's just not wrong in the same
way as a killing other uh things it
might even work against
infanticide you might have to this might
say that infanticide is okay which seems
obviously wrong so let me just say
quickly my conclusion for what it's
worth which is worth nothing abortion
doesn't seem to be wrong because killing
zygos fetuses or embryos is wrong but
can and often is wrong in other ways
maybe on a case-by-case uh basis uh this
is what my whole dissertation was about
that sometimes it might be that a person
doesn't have an appropriate sense of awe
that they could be acting cruelly that
they could wrongly assess the value
value of motherhood that if they have an
inappropriate understanding of
disabilities or something like that
um sometimes even if even if it's wrong
not it might be wrong not to have an
abortion when bringing a child into uh
existence would bring a great hardship
okay that's all I have time for sorry
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
Pro-Life Arguments #2
Judith Jarvis Thomson | Eine Verteidigung der Abtreibung | Geiger-Analogie und weitere Analogien
Abortion and Personhood: What the Moral Dilemma Is Really About | Glenn Cohen | Big Think
Justin Trudeau WINS Abortion Debate By Assuming What Needs to be Proved
Abortion: Introduction
Ted Cruz: Public must decide abortion issue
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)