[Peace-discuss] abortion rights argument

[Ricky Baldwin]

Hi John,

Thanks for your thoughtful question and comment.  Of course some would say that such bondage is just punishment for someone who commits the minor crime of running a red light.  I have to say I cannot agree.  The wreck you describe remains accidental, albeit seemingly caused by carelessness.
  
We live in a very punitive society, supported by a highly punitive culture, but I believe such vindictiveness serves no good purpose.  Nor is it justified.  I notice you didn't go into the cause of the driver running the red
light, which might also be of interest: the driver may have had a sudden heart attack, or on the other side might have been drunk, or possibly just allowed himself or herself to be distracted by the sudden appearance of a big dog inching out into the road, any number of things.  Regardless, I suppose most of
us would find this sort of situation barbaric if it were real punishment - just as we would probably find it amazingly altruistic if really undertaken voluntarily to save someone's life.  (As an aside I would also argue that preventing an adult from entering into such an arrangement to save a loved one's life would also be on morally shaky ground, perhaps given a certain standard of safety, etc.) 

But it's just an analogy to illustrate a point, as I mentioned.  And it is possible to stretch it too far.  I'm not ready to liken sex in general to running a traffic light, for example.  Sex can be unwise at times, true, but it's downright silly, not to mention totalitarian, to make it a crime - even a minor crime - if it's between consenting adults and carried out away from the view of people who don't want to see it, observing certain minimal standards of propriety involving other people's rights, etc.

 
If I may, I think the point you want to make is that my unfortunate patient got into this mess through his or her own actions.  Of course we know this isn't always the case, as in the story of the Austrian father recently convicted of heinous violence and captivity among other crimes.  But that's not the majority of cases, and many abortion opponents are in favor of exceptions for rape or incest, so let's leave those aside for now.  A better analogy might be that the patient had participated in some sort of lottery - or if you want to make it seedy, a poker game - in which the loser gets stuck with this sort of arrangement of tubes and wires.  (This isn't perfect, either, of course - not least because some people would enter the game to try to *win* the arrangement if a certain close familial relationship would result.  But the analogy has to do with obligations, not desires as such.)

I claim it does not matter.  That's why the scenario says nothing about how the patient got into this mess.  It's immaterial.  

Even if I sign a specific agreement to give you one of my kidneys, for example, I can change my mind. - even if you will certainly die as a result.   It is tragic if you die, but it is not my moral obligation to keep you alive in this way.  Even if money has exchanged hands, I can give the money back, or try to raise it.  Or at worst I can be done for breach of contract.  But I cannot be *forced* to give up my kidney, much less submit to the scenario above, not ethically.  That's the point.

(Again, as an aside that I think helps illustrate the point, reproductive freedom also 

And of course I know that safe, clean and legal doesn't make a practice ethical in and of itself.  I didn't argue that it did.  But it is fair enough to fill out the picture in this way, since these facts do illuminate what is being done when men (or a group which is mostly men) take away the reproductive rights of women.

Sorry my answer is so much longer than your question, by the way.  I probably need to work on being concise.  At any rate I hope I gave your points due consideration.

Ricky


"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn




________________________________
From: John Fettig <john.fettig at gmail.com>
To: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 1:20:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] abortion rights argument

Ricky,

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Consider a person who wakes up one day in a hospital bed with another person
> lying in the same bed.  The other person is sleeping.  Upon inspection, the
> first person discovers to her horror that the second person is attached to
> her by a bundle of tubes and cords of various sizes and shapes.  It turns
> out the other person cannot live without her, at least for a number of
> months, and even separating the two (prematurely) will result in death of
> the other.  Allowing the attachment to remain could cause death to the first
> person, but the doctors say there is not a huge chance of that in today's
> hospitals.

Does the ethics of this scenario change if you start the story this way:

You are driving in your car, and run a red light.   The person you run
into is hurt badly, and you are unconscious.  The doctors determine
that the only way for the person you hit to survive is the bundle of
tubes you describe, and so they implement this while you are out.

> However there is a safe, clean, legal alternative, not too awfully
> expensive, that will terminate the connection and the other person's life.

I want to point out that being (safe, clean, legal, cheap) is not a
precondition for being ethical.

John



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090330/110ef602/attachment.html