Before we discussed the problem of moral. Sometimes, it is difficult to be rational. It is because it always invloded feeling. Regarding the fetus, it can be treating as the potentials life when the couple wants to have the baby. They would expect the fetus becomes the baby. Then, the baby will grow up as the meaningful person in the society. Oppositely, if the mother would like to determined the life of fetus, the fetus would be treating as killing the animals for serving the meal. It does not have any value. In fact, the fetus which does not have any thinking until the baby is completely born. The concept of fetus existing is completely given by the mother or human being. As a result, if mother decision and life should be more imprtant than fetus.
Based on the reasoning or argument of your post, since fetus potentially becomes baby, the baby does personhood after birth or completely born. Just as no one violates my property rights when taking what [“mother decision and life” in your post] I no longer desire to have, so it is no wrong is done to a newborn or fetus in killing him or her because he or she does not have a concept of himself or herself (personhood), has no desire to live, and thus has no rights to violate. By such interpretation, we can conclude that abortion is permissible throughout all nine months or pregnancy and infanticide is also permissible until the baby has concepts [“thinking” in your post]. The problem will be raised “when does a human child begin to have concepts or personhood?” In our lecture, we used the development of upper brain especially cerebrum defining between personhood and human organism begin of fetus (26-27 weeks). However determining when personhood begins might be subjective. For example, in most cases pro-life or most parents might not having chosen abortion in pregnancy because pregnancy means live begins. Other the other hand, if someone termination of human beings is permissible until begin to have concepts and speech develops, or “a being with awareness of his or her own existence, and the capacity to have wants and plans for the plans for the future” [Peter Singer, 1994], then infanticide or eliminate (killing) children might also be acceptable. On Roman Catholic position, not only abortion but also contraception is not been accepted. The interruption between taking sperm to reach an egg that will end the existence of a potentially human; such interpretation caused contraception is not being acceptable. I suggests that “where to draw the line” is also troubling to make contradiction on subjectivity definition of personhood begin of fetus, the justification of abortion will becoming fuzzy.
ReplyDeletepersonally, i don't totally agree with Marquis' view, but still, share with everybody...
Deletesource: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/future.shtml
"Future like ours"
基於胚胎沒有發言權（亦無發言的能力），有理由相信母親主宰人工流產的決定。至於母親如何決定和其決定是否道德，正是討論的重點所在 —— 無論母親的生命比胚胎更重要與否。
ReplyDelete(Re: d.wong Mar 1) 關於閣下提出「基於胚胎沒有發言權（亦無發言的能力），有理由相信母親主宰人工流產的決定。」，何以見得「胚胎沒有發言權（亦無發言的能力）」，便「有理由相信母親主宰人工流產的決定」這因與果的關係呢？
ReplyDelete這兩句主要是基於作者的論點延伸出來的看法。若沒理解錯誤，作者認為胚胎的價值取決於母親想不想保留胚胎的決定上，個人在這方面亦認同胚胎的未來如何是完全被動的，相信亦沒人會反對此點。至於母親主宰胚胎的未來當然不是指在任何情況下都是必然的，而是在一般情況和預期下相信會這樣發展而已，主要是說明了這個可能性的存在。正如有理由相信坐上西鐵列車的話會比坐巴士更快到逹學校一樣，同樣沒有必然性，而是申述了可能性。
Delete(Re: d.wongMar 3, 2012 09:17 AM)
ReplyDelete依我看「有理由相信母親主宰人工流產的決定」似乎包含了「有理由相信母親全權兼免責地自行作人工流產的決定」的意思，未知閣下是否確有此意。(在下只是就閣下的真正見解要求一點澄清以避免誤會而已。)
這句話當中的「主宰」一詞的意思主要是「全面控制」，帶出母親在客觀環境下其在當中的身份和影響力，並不涉及任何權責的意思。一如廚師主宰了餐廳食客的胃口，但他並沒有任何權利亂來，也要為他煮的東西負責任。當然也有一些例子是權責與能力兼備，例如老師主宰了我們的畢業結果。
DeleteAbortion is morally permissible by feminism in some situations, represented by Professor Judith Jarvis Thomson. She grants the fetus with the moral staus as a person from the moment of conception. Her reasons for abortion are:(1) Self-defence Argument: A woman has a right to self-defence even at the cost of fetus's death.This occurs especially when mother's life is in danger during the gestational period. (2) Ownership Argument: Both mother and the fetus have the right to life, but mother has the property right to own her body. On balancing the right to life and property right, the third party (usually the doctor) may prefers abortion for the mother especially during the first trimester. (3) Priority Argument:this argument is connected with ownership argument together with a distinction between help that a descent person will give and help that someone has a right to demand. Simply speaking, in rape case, the fetus does not have a right to use mother's body and mother has no corresponding obligation to allow fetus to use her body. In an another situation, when parents has taken all reasonable contraceptive precautions, they do not assume responsibility for an unwelcome fetus. The fetus does not have a right to use mother's body. Thomson's arguments are influential. Please discuss.
ReplyDelete生命的重要應該是平等的。無可否認的一點是媽媽是擁有更高的理性及決定嬰兒生死的能力。若媽媽認為嬰兒的出生只會對嬰兒造成痛苦,如:戰亂、畸胎、唐氏綜合症...等,她都應該有權利再出墮胎的抉擇,但若只為自己的生活、自由,而放棄胎兒,這就是不尊重生命,因為每個生命其實都有其自由,但在社會中每個人的自由都有機會衝突,不能因為自由的衝突便犧牲生命的。
ReplyDelete(1) If a fetus is a potential human being, it should then be a potential human being regardless of the expectation of its parents
ReplyDelete(2) The value of a human being embedded in itself instead of the determination of others
(3) If a fetus does not have any value due to the fact that its brain (thinking) is not fully developed, should we also regard new born children or mentally retarded human beings as valueless?