"You are tacitly giving your stamp of approval to the murders by studying the murdered bodies. You need to find other brains to study." I agree, but what about the polio vaccine, which has helped many people but did involve the use of aborted unborn persons, according to advocates for legal abortion? If they're right, should we create a better one without using aborted unborn persons? Or should we just ditch the whole thing?
From observation, I think very few pro-choice people support abortion on a straight bodily-rights basis (at least regarding the more nuanced "right to refuse" argument). Their argument is usually along the lines of "I don't think the unborn is a person, but if we pretend it is for the sake of the argument then here's why abortion should still be legal". Judith Thomson says this in her essay, and David Boonin spends half his book trying to argue that the unborn are not persons. If pro-choice people thought the unborn were persons, they wouldn't go berserk over the idea of artificial uteri being a plausible alternative to abortion. They would also be unconditionally opposed to post-viability abortion (ie no exceptions for rape, incest, mother's mental health, etc). People who genuinely think the unborn are persons but support abortion on the bodily rights basis always seem to either end up pro-life, or end up in federal prison (yes, there's a story there).
It doesn't seem like that would apply, since a parent in that situation never gave up their parental obligations. The differences between parents choosing to have their children killed and parents who want their children but who tragically die during pregnancy, (as two of mine have,) are vast.
I don't believe it is accurate to say that because a woman has the right to donate fetal tissue that this must also mean that she has some sort of parental obligations to the fetus. (Although even if she did, parental duty still never goes so far as to demand a sacrifice of autonomy.) It could also be said that because a fetus is NOT a person, that therefore the woman could claim the fetus as a sort of biological property, and would be justified in donating her fetus for research if she wished. I don't think there's any cognitive dissonance there.
To your first point, I think the claim that parental duty never goes so far as to demand a sacrifice of autonomy is problematic. But I'm sure we would agree that there is a limit to how much sacrifice parental duty can demand. I generally don't push back against the violinist on the grounds of parental obligations because while I think it is a very real problem in the analogy, many pregnant mothers don't see themselves as "parents," and I generally don't think haggling over that definition is the most productive way to spend time in an argument. This is something of a weird case because it's one where the defender of abortion has conceded that she is a parent. To your second point, we essentially agree, I basically said as much in the next paragraph. If the fetus is a non-person, I don't think it's morally problematic to sell it and study it (though there could be some conditions, like a great amount of unnecessary suffering that could complicate things). I think the only way to justify Planned Parenthood selling baby parts is to deny the personhood of the fetus.
"To your first point, I think the claim that parental duty never goes so far as to demand a sacrifice of autonomy is problematic. But I'm sure we would agree that there is a limit to how much sacrifice parental duty can demand. I generally don't push back against the violinist on the grounds of parental obligations because while I think it is a very real problem in the analogy, many pregnant mothers don't see themselves as "parents," and I generally don't think haggling over that definition is the most productive way to spend time in an argument. This is something of a weird case because it's one where the defender of abortion has conceded that she is a parent." Agreed. "To your second point, we essentially agree, I basically said as much in the next paragraph. If the fetus is a non-person, I don't think it's morally problematic to sell it and study it (though there could be some conditions, like a great amount of unnecessary suffering that could complicate things). I think the only way to justify Planned Parenthood selling baby parts is to deny the personhood of the fetus." I don't think that's only way to make a case for the donation of fetal tissue, but I do reject the idea of fetal personhood.
Studying the brains rationalizes the murderous actions that caused the brains to be available to study. But we are assuming in the first place, for the sake of argument, that abortion is morally equivalent to unplugging from the violinist and therefore not a murderous action. So wouldn't the "don't let it go to waste" argument carry some weight? It might not outweigh the desecration argument or the additional-incentive-to-kill argument against the use of body parts, but wouldn't it carry some weight?
Thanks for a beautifully-done article. One question, though: If it were me, I might still unplug from the violinist, but if so I’d certainly want to find a more trustworthy group of people to do the procedure, people who weren’t financially motivated to end the violinist’s life. At this point in the article, you have expressed concern about two ways, and I think only two, in which Planned Parenthood is financially motivated to end an unborn child’s life (and I think those concerns [Edit: and one more, the desecration, are also the only concerns of any kind about abortion that you have identified as being concerns that Thomson -- or what her thought experiment suggests -- would share with you]):
PP wants to increase its business (e.g., the awards)
PP profits from sale of the body parts. But you offer to let us dismiss 2. ("If you’re unconvinced that Planned Parenthood profits off selling baby parts . . .") If the PP people stand to enrich themselves by committing abortions -- given the influence they are likely to have over the victims' mothers, even though it is those mothers who technically make the decision, and given that the PP people could refuse to do an abortion if their conscience demanded -- that will of course unduly jeopardize the unborn. But your people who weren’t financially motivated seems to say that they should do the abortion for free. [Edit: Do you mean that, and -- since we're joining Thomson in assuming that abortions are justifiable -- would that be reasonable?] I think the concept should be that if abortion should be legal, doctors and clinic workers should have alternative means of livelihood open to them, and the compensation for abortions should not be any higher than via those alternatives. [Edit: Then PP would have no financial motivation to increase its sales -- though they could possibly have other motivations to increase abortions.] And regarding the organs: just before seeing this article, I had taken a small stab http://www.noterminationwithoutrepresentation.org/planned-parenthood-an-unmentioned-ethical-issue/ and had said, "there’s an ethical issue here. . . . Someone benefits from the organs of the unborn, whether Planned Parenthood makes a profit or not. That benefit to someone inevitably becomes an additional incentive to kill, whether that incentive is small or big." (Even if only the mother, who will not get anything financially, is the "justice system that [both] sentences [the child and is] also . . . in charge of whether we harvest the organs.") Even if Planned Parenthood and the mother are motivated to donate the organs only altruistically, in order to provide some medical benefit to someone other than themselves, that motivation puts unborn children slightly more at risk. I don't think logic absolutely dictates that [Edit: due to that motivation donation of the organs should be forbidden, but my moral intuition says -- even without considering the desecration issue] . . . that the organs should go to waste. Regarding desecration, however: I would not say that the organs of someone who died in a traffic accident, with no one's decision-making involved in that death, should go to waste, even if that person had not given consent. I don't see why that person's organs should not be used, if it's really for a significant humanitarian purpose. As I wrote http://www.noterminationwithoutrepresentation.org/dismantling-the-bodily-rights-argument-without-using-the-responsibility-argument/, "There should be a little ceremony honoring the memory of the dead person." I said, "my moral intuition says they should go to waste." Well, my moral intuition also says that those organs should not have been available the first place. I don't agree with Thomson. But that is another story, discussed also at the link just above. [Edit: I’ll assume for sake of argument that just as you have the right to unplug. . . . You should still be standing with me, infuriated . . . I'm not sure one could get to the point of fury if they agree with Thomson. I think some distinction has to be made between your and my fury on the one hand, and the fury of pro-choicers who consider the unborn human in the 2nd trimester on the other hand. Then we add in the fact that such pro-choicers may have come to identify Planned Parenthood with their bodily-rights ideology, and it may become understandable why they hesitate to get furious.] P.S.: We've been hearing a lot of talk about "heavily-edited"!
the murdered bodies. You need to find other brains to study."
I agree, but what about the polio vaccine, which has helped many people but did involve the use of aborted unborn persons, according to advocates for legal abortion? If they're right, should we create a better one without using aborted unborn persons? Or should we just ditch the whole thing?
To your second point, we essentially agree, I basically said as much in the next paragraph. If the fetus is a non-person, I don't think it's morally problematic to sell it and study it (though there could be some conditions, like a great amount of unnecessary suffering that could complicate things). I think the only way to justify Planned Parenthood selling baby parts is to deny the personhood of the fetus.
Agreed.
"To your second point, we essentially agree, I basically said as much in the next paragraph. If the fetus is a non-person, I don't think it's morally problematic to sell it and study it (though there could be some conditions, like a great amount of unnecessary suffering that could complicate things). I think the only way to justify Planned Parenthood selling baby parts is to deny the personhood of the fetus."
I don't think that's only way to make a case for the donation of fetal tissue, but I do reject the idea of fetal personhood.
But we are assuming in the first place, for the sake of argument, that abortion is morally equivalent to unplugging from the violinist and therefore not a murderous action. So wouldn't the "don't let it go to waste" argument carry some weight? It might not outweigh the desecration argument or the additional-incentive-to-kill argument against the use of body parts, but wouldn't it carry some weight?
http://studentsforlife.org/why-womenbetrayed-and-not-ppsellsbabyparts/
One question, though:
If it were me, I might still unplug from the violinist, but if so I’d certainly want to find a more trustworthy group of people to do the procedure, people who weren’t financially motivated to end the violinist’s life.
At this point in the article, you have expressed concern about two ways, and I think only two, in which Planned Parenthood is financially motivated to end an unborn child’s life (and I think those concerns [Edit: and one more, the desecration, are also the only concerns of any kind about abortion that you have identified as being concerns that Thomson -- or what her thought experiment suggests -- would share with you]):
But you offer to let us dismiss 2. ("If you’re unconvinced that Planned Parenthood profits off selling baby parts . . .")
If the PP people stand to enrich themselves by committing abortions -- given the influence they are likely to have over the victims' mothers, even though it is those mothers who technically make the decision, and given that the PP people could refuse to do an abortion if their conscience demanded -- that will of course unduly jeopardize the unborn.
But your people who weren’t financially motivated seems to say that they should do the abortion for free. [Edit: Do you mean that, and -- since we're joining Thomson in assuming that abortions are justifiable -- would that be reasonable?]
I think the concept should be that if abortion should be legal, doctors and clinic workers should have alternative means of livelihood open to them, and the compensation for abortions should not be any higher than via those alternatives. [Edit: Then PP would have no financial motivation to increase its sales -- though they could possibly have other motivations to increase abortions.]
And regarding the organs: just before seeing this article, I had taken a small stab http://www.noterminationwithoutrepresentation.org/planned-parenthood-an-unmentioned-ethical-issue/ and had said, "there’s an ethical issue here. . . . Someone benefits from the organs of the unborn, whether Planned Parenthood makes a profit or not. That benefit to someone inevitably becomes an additional incentive to kill, whether that incentive is small or big." (Even if only the mother, who will not get anything financially, is the "justice system that [both] sentences [the child and is] also . . . in charge of whether we harvest the organs.")
Even if Planned Parenthood and the mother are motivated to donate the organs only altruistically, in order to provide some medical benefit to someone other than themselves, that motivation puts unborn children slightly more at risk.
I don't think logic absolutely dictates that [Edit: due to that motivation donation of the organs should be forbidden, but my moral intuition says -- even without considering the desecration issue] . . . that the organs should go to waste.
Regarding desecration, however: I would not say that the organs of someone who died in a traffic accident, with no one's decision-making involved in that death, should go to waste, even if that person had not given consent. I don't see why that person's organs should not be used, if it's really for a significant humanitarian purpose. As I wrote http://www.noterminationwithoutrepresentation.org/dismantling-the-bodily-rights-argument-without-using-the-responsibility-argument/, "There should be a little ceremony honoring the memory of the dead person."
I said, "my moral intuition says they should go to waste." Well, my moral intuition also says that those organs should not have been available the first place. I don't agree with Thomson. But that is another story, discussed also at the link just above.
[Edit: I’ll assume for sake of argument that just as you have the right to unplug. . . . You should still be standing with me, infuriated . . . I'm not sure one could get to the point of fury if they agree with Thomson. I think some distinction has to be made between your and my fury on the one hand, and the fury of pro-choicers who consider the unborn human in the 2nd trimester on the other hand. Then we add in the fact that such pro-choicers may have come to identify Planned Parenthood with their bodily-rights ideology, and it may become understandable why they hesitate to get furious.]
P.S.: We've been hearing a lot of talk about "heavily-edited"!