The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The case of the violinist and the fetus > Comments

The case of the violinist and the fetus : Comments

By Helen Pringle, published 22/2/2005

Helen Pringle argues that even if the fetus is a person, there are still good arguments for allowing abortion.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 11
  9. 12
  10. 13
  11. All
Interesting (and at the same time, somehow boring), to read that females should not have to use their bodies or be subjected to any such use if they do not agree, or agree but then change their mind.

Similarly, non-female people earning an income using their body, should not be forced to forfeit any such exertion, or rental, to no other person or society in general, or for their own good such as services they may receive in return, especially if they change their mind part of the year through.

Sure, the 9 month variable is not part of the male equation, but over the 18 years, their bodies are used just as much, and never do they earn equal say. Financially support a child for at least the next 18 years, after they’ve had no say in the matter? No way!

What obligation should women have to any other stake holder in the pregnancy equation?

The state? None?
Sexual partner, or husband? None?
Late-term foetus, that could survive without the mother? None?

Well said Bozzie and Josh.
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 10:40:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins - you seem to be taking this argument very personally. I assume you've had a bad experience. If so, I'm sorry. My partner has had a similar one. But I still don't see how you can possibly use examples like this to somehow argue that men can veto a woman's right to an abortion. It's fairly simple: if you are opposed to a woman aborting a pregnancy then discuss it before you have sex. Simple.

And Bozzie - you should read the whole argument before declaring it "weak". The violinist is a first example. Thompson then goes on to debate the issue of knowledge. Is using contraception enough to make you an innocent "victim" if said contraception fails etc...

Nowhere does Thompson say killing is OK. It is more subtle than that: that there is no other situation in which the state forces its citizens to keep another person alive - and that pregnancy is no different. None of it is an argument about whether one SHOULD have an abortion, only that governments don't have a right to forbid it.
Posted by Amanda, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 11:16:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amanda

Your comment: "None of it is an argument about whether one SHOULD have an abortion, only that governments don't have a right to forbid it."

Surely all recent discussion is to explore the moral issue of whether or not it is a right act to abort a foetus wilfully and where it is found not a right act, whether it is right for the state to support it. This a fair discussion in a social/liberal democracy that has its foundations, its tap roots, in Judeo-Christian moral law and tradition that recognises the dignity of all human life and its need for support and enhancement through all its stages.

The article's argument that no life that depends on another is worthy of safe guarding and protection is chilling. Are we not all dependent on others in a loved life, only from which a loving life can proceed and act?

It is my view that the abortion act has a life inhibiting effect for all human entities engaged, be they active or passive in it. So no matter what material benefit is attained in the act by some, the loss of being, wholly or in part, is experienced by all.

The information needs to be gleaned and disseminated, and a social discussion promoted.

It is also my view that there should be no statute to proscribe abortion as a life inhibiting act as there are none against other life inhibitors of our culture. But the state should not fund and underwrite it.

Let the people with such passionate purpose in support of choice establish a mutual support fund. Let them emulate the millions of people who contribute tens of millions of dollars yearly in enhancing peoples' life through care and support networks for those on the edge in our society. They should not be requiring all taxpayers to participate in an act that is regarded as so wrong at the personal level.

MJB
Posted by MJB, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 12:49:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thomsons analogy fails miserably to show that the legality killing of an unborn human child is irrespective of its personhood. Clearly, it falls short of a useful analogy for abortion in 3 areas.
1) The kidnapped victim is forced into situation against their will. Clearly then, the analogy can only apply in rape cases, not abortion as a whole.

2) There is a difference between action and inaction in law, even in regards to life and death. The violinist would die from the kidney ailment if you disconnected, not from a direct killing, which is what abortion is.

3) The analogy uses artificial situations, where if the violinist is left without artificial intervention, they would die. The baby, left to nature would continue to be fine.

The tissue/organ donation analogy only addresses the first problem (point 1) and so still fails to be a good analogy.

Also, note that the state requires tissue donation in certain circumstances (Blood tests etc)

Finally, with regards to classes and rights, Helen seems to be happy to force a class of persons (I.e. the unborn child) to be discriminated against by allowing them to be killed for convenience. No other class in society is subjected to this.

More comments by me can be read on http://alangrey.blogspot.com
Posted by Grey, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 11:12:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amanda,

I have noted your “assumptions” regards myself, but they are unsupported by evidence and mean little to me.

The author has left out fathers in this article on abortion, which is a sign that she considers fathers to be irrelevant.

There are no fathers in the article, but the author has incorporated a violinist instead, although a violinist is very esoteric when it comes to abortion.

The incorporation of the violinist into the article, may have been done to try and obscure the fact that very little research has actually been carried out into abortion in this country, and few accurate facts have been established. When it comes to abortion, much has become obscure, and many facts and much information is not available, or not made widely known.

As far as fathers go, they are relevant, as it takes both a man and a woman for a child to be conceived, and sexual intercourse has to be quite frequent between the two for a child to be conceived. Conception or pregnancy due to irregular sexual intercourse (eg a one night stand), or due to such things as rape is not that likely, and some have estimated it to be less than a 1% chance.

The father is just as relevant as the mother, but leaving out fathers, (or regarding them as just sperm-donors or pay-packets etc), does not help to solve the many problems involving abortion. Instead it does make people become very suspicious of academics that indulge in such exercises, as those academics are showing considerable gender bias, and a considerable lack of respect for both male and female rights.

Australian academics are being paid at some of the highest rates of pay in the world. See. “Big bucks? It's all academic” at …http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/wireless/story/0,8262,7-12191805,00.html

But should these academics and researchers be paid a lot of taxpayer’s money to be biased in some way, or to try and hide or obscure relevant facts and information?

I don’t think so, and that is my argument regards this author and her article.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 1:25:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Judith Jarvis Thomson's infamous violinist analogy is totally discredited. Doris Gordon of Libertarians For Life annihilates her arguments in her article http://www.l4l.org/library/thomviol.html "Abortion and Thomson's Violinist: Unplugging a Bad Analogy". Read it and learn.
Posted by jaxxen, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 1:43:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 11
  9. 12
  10. 13
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy