Wednesday, March 7, 2012

性愛的義務(如果有的話)


當人享受性愛帶來的快樂的同時,究竟人又有沒有必要為這與生俱來的權利去履行一些義務?

必須呈清一點,這裡所指「性愛的義務」並不是說「性愛是男女伴侶之間的義務」或「性愛是女人對丈夫 / 男朋友履行的義務」這類意思。一如開宗明義所說,是針對純性愛活動內參與者的權利與義務來提出討論。

在墮胎網誌中提出「性愛的義務」很明顯地讓人聯想到懷孕與生育。的確,本文想探討的正是這老掉牙的題材。從自然界法則去看,性行為之後繁殖下一代是正常不過的事情,為什麼今天人在享受性愛的同時,卻爭取不履行生育的義務呢?甚至試圖把這種免疫制定為一種合法權利?

當然,避孕已經成為「普世價值」的今天,來討論「性愛的義務」是否太落伍?太費時失事?不過這裡必須強調,如命題所示討論重點是「性愛的義務」,而不是「生育的義務」。

關於墮胎這個題材向來正反意見充斥,各有各的論點亦各自捍衛不同而一樣可貴的人類精神價值,而本文的目的是,當各種正反價值都無法在理性上凌駕對方的時候,嘗試回到最基本,甚麼前人定下的倫理價值都撇開不談,都不計算在內,只單純去看性愛活動,試圖從中找出性愛行為與墮胎的關係,從中找出結論。

簡單一點說,如果一個人只追求性愛的快樂,以此為其生存的重要目的,其他精神價值他都不在乎,在這樣的假設下,是否她(或他)就可以理直氣壯的進行墮胎?

蜜蜂的理性決定

花吸引蜜蜂來採花蜜,從而讓花粉散播,從而達到繁殖的目的。有一天蜜蜂說,我只想採美味的花蜜來吃,但不想再碰那些花粉,並想盡辦法不去碰他們,也為這種行為想出很多符合理性的理由(例如地球上太多花的話就沒有樹立足的地方),從而讓不碰花粉這種行為合埋化。

這個例子會令人聯想到什麼呢?可能有些人會想:「好呵,我不跟你辯,你們確有這個自由,又看看將來會如何(廣東話:我放長雙眼睇你將來會點)。」心裡卻想,你們這麼自私看看會嘗到什麼惡果。

如果每隻蜜蜂都這樣做的話,雖然花還有其他自然方法繁殖,但沒有了蜜蜂的途徑,而蜜蜂
不斷採花蜜,像蝗蟲一樣,不停掠奪別的生物的成果,而沒有貢獻,總會供不應求,密蜂最後也享受不到花蜜了。

一些人不想生育,卻想一直追求、一直享受性愛的快樂,會否又是另一種蝗蟲表現?性愛行為由人促成,沒有人自然就沒有屬於人類的性愛活動的出現。如果你有 100 歲命,贊成墮胎的你又會否擔心,到老時再難找到新「對手」呢?

事實上,從這角度出發,贊成墮胎的想法會否是一種反對性愛的表現?如果你喜歡性愛,理性角度看你絕不應該贊成墮胎,因為這是最基本的市場供求關係法則。

(代續)

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Repost: The Judith Thomas’s Burglar Analogy

“If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, “Ah, now he can stay, she’s given him a right to the use of her house—for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.” It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars.”
“Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don’t want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective; and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not—despite the fact that you voluntarily open your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won’t do—for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a army.”

The Burglar analogy pointing out the parents should not have responsibility for their own children to those “violinists”, “burglars”, or “person-plants”. Does the parents haven’t any responsibility or duty to their children even they have already taken precaution to avoid pregnancy? Since the World haven’t prefect contraception methods, or even those men and women think that coitus interruptus (體外排精) be avoiding pregnancy. It does not mean that they do not have any responsible for the foreseen results of actions. Abortion seems not a reason for relieving their responsibility.

Cars are vehicles that you normally should have control over. Imagine that car is becoming fully automatic control by artifactual intelligence technique or computer. You are the owner and driver of this car, and it hit a truck. I think that you still have some kinds of responsibility for this accident. Based on this thought experiment, I think that Judith Thomson’s Burglar Analogy is not strong enough to convincing me to accept abortion. 

Repost: The bodily integrity objection against the Violinist Analogy

In violinist analogy, unplugging that caused a separation between the violinist and you. If we considering the “unplugging” was replaced by freeing yourself from the violinist by poisoning him or putting him through a powerful suction machine like a jet engine. Thomson’s violinist analogy might not simply separating themselves or cutting a cord that links victim to the violinist. So the methods are actually used for abortion might eventually affecting our decision. The most commonly used methods of abortion like suction curettage, dilation and evacuation, dilation and extraction or partial-birth abortion and induction, those methods killing the fetus by mangling or poisoning in order to remove it from the uterus. Based on consideration of administration method of abortion, the violinist analogy may fail to criticize under the situations of (1) direct intervention against the body of the fetal human, and (2) the death of the human being in uterus is directly caused by this intervention.