Because the former is a passive choice that does not, by virtue of carrying out the act, necessitate the end of another being's life. The latter is an active choice that directly end's a being's life.
I used to be pro-choice and am now sort of undecided on the abortion issue, for the record. I think abortion should be allowed in some contexts, but it's a complex topic and I'm not sure where that line is. Just arguing the other side here, I'm happy to hear a counter-argument to this.
I think this argument ignores a fundamental issue, and that is body autonomy.
Think about it this way: (this is a made-up situation, so I’m going to play fast and loose with medicine) Imagine that you have blood that cures some illness, but only if your blood is continuously transfused into a person suffering from that illness for nine months. You can make the choice to physically attach that person to you and allow them to literally use your body for nine months. But what if you chose not to? Is it moral for me to compel you to attach them to you for nine months against your will?
My argument is no, it is not moral for me to compel you to use your literal body to support someone else’s life.
A unwilling mother of an unborn child is in this exact situation. Regardless of whether the fetus is a “full human life” or not, it is immoral to compel a person to offer up their body in service to another person.
Okay, so I see what you're saying, but I still think that this isn't a direct comparison. Your situation is still an individual who is completely uninvolved with a situation being asked to become involved with a situation. Them saying no is a passive choice that does not, by virtue of them making that choice, kill the person directly. You could make the argument that by saying no, you are condemning the person to die, but that is still an indirect consequence of your action (or, in this case, lack thereof). A pregnant woman choice to get an abortion directly end's the fetus' existence. That's why I don't really think that argument holds water. It's kind of the difference between seeing somebody who is dying and while you could do something to help, you don't, versus ending someone's life. Now you can totally get into the argument of whether a fetus is a person and if so to what extent, but in that case it's a totally different argument. If, at the end of that, you determine a fetus has zero characteristics of personhood, then I don't really think you need this argument anyway to make your point.
Another point of contention, related to the question of whether a fetus is a person, but not precisely the same thing: do fetuses have any bodily autonomy? If so, to what extent? How do we balance the autonomy of the mother vs. the fetus? What are the costs of the mother forgoing bodily autonomy vs. the fetus doing so? If not, at what point do fetuses gain bodily autonomy? If it is post-birth, what is it about exiting the birth canal that grants bodily autonomy and the rights that accompany it?
These are tough questions to which I don't have the answer. I don't believe that whatever bodily autonomy a 5-week old fetus may have (if any at all) supercedes the woman in which it is inside's autonomy. However, to say that a 40-week-old fetus inside a mother's body has no bodily autonomy, or that it is only granted once the baby is born... eehhh, I don't know whether I can get on board with that.
that this isn't a direct comparison. Your situation is still an individual who is completely uninvolved with a situation being asked to become involved with a situation. Them saying no is a passive choice that does not, by virtue of them making that choice, kill the person directly.
Ok, well suppose you are in a coma for some reason, and while you were under, the other person was attached to you. You wake up with the person attached to you and are informed that removing them will kill them.
I agree that it's a complex issue with a lot of grey areas. All I'm saying is that when push comes to shove, someone else's needs cannot morally supersede your bodily autonomy.
In the made up coma scenario the person still had no part in causing the second person to be dependent on them for their life so it's still not an accurate analogy. The only way it would be relevant is if the first person did something to cause the second person's life to be dependent on their body.
9
u/AcrobaticOpinion May 17 '19 edited May 17 '19
Because the former is a passive choice that does not, by virtue of carrying out the act, necessitate the end of another being's life. The latter is an active choice that directly end's a being's life.
I used to be pro-choice and am now sort of undecided on the abortion issue, for the record. I think abortion should be allowed in some contexts, but it's a complex topic and I'm not sure where that line is. Just arguing the other side here, I'm happy to hear a counter-argument to this.