12. What is My Duty? Bodily Autonomy Arguments of Thomson, McDonagh, and Boonin [Ethics at...]

[@Irislaurel]

I more appreciate the bodily autonomy argument with it's intellect than the argument that denies science.

[@Magnulus76]

Few are arguing autonomy is the only ethical consideration in abortion, just that it's more primary than other considerations.

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

Here are reasons why the violinist thought experiment or its core argument doesn't work: - it's not analogous to pregnancy or abortion at all. - Letting die (failing to save) vs. Active killing (Direct killing) - No special relationship - The stranger is not responsible for the state of affairs that the Violinist is in. - Extraordinary amount of care (in the case of organ donation) vs. Ordinary/basic care (By which I mean, women's body is naturally ordered towards the kind of changes it undergoes during pregnancy). - thought experiment only works if you frame it in the way Judith Jarvis frames it. Make it more analogous and it fails miserably.

[@dannaalquati]

If you consider that the act of disconnecting your body is letting die, then you need to agree that certain methods of abortions are letting die . All these arguments you gave are covered by David Boonin in his book Beyond Roe.

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

@@dannaalquati "disconnecting" can very well be active killing too. Active killing simply means death brought about by an act as opposed to death brought about by natural means. Also, it's simply a fact that all abortion procedures are a matter of killing, not letting die.

[@orangeorangeorange5075]

@@IWasOnceAFetus based

[@lisaratley4858]

Teaching students to give up our right to bodily autonomy.

[@chrisarmon1002]

Teaching students that bodily autonomy is not a logical reason to kill your child. Example did you hear the horrible examples what bodily autonomy does it harm ? Example a women has a right to do drugs and abuse her unborn and cause them addiction when born?

[@orangeorangeorange5075]

you are with your baby at your house and get snowed in. You don't have formula and but you have easy access to your breastmilk. You decide to exercise your right to bodily autonomy to not breastfeed your baby until they starve to death. Should I be prosecuted in this situation? Why or why not? Would I be prosecuted?

[@douglasschrift4453]

@@orangeorangeorange5075if they’re snowed in they’re both gonna die regardless so it doesn’t matter.

[@J3urkasaur]

I don't know exactly where I stand on the topic of the abortion or the bodily rights argument, but I think this conversation was very one-sided. The professor is teaching the students how to debunk this view specifically, but I think the conversation would be more useful if the other side was seriously represented.

[@Bill_G]

Scott Klusendorf has debated before. It's still one-sided ;)

[@jamesbrinkley8818]

Matthew Burke Could you provide an argument or resource to supplement that view? To my knowledge, the propositions offered by Boonin, Singer, Nathanson, Thompson, and the other lady I wasn’t aware of admittedly, seem to drive at the crux of the bodily autonomy argument. I’m very much interested in any other representation. There seems at bottom an issue with trying to construct analogies that are unable to fully parse with those conditions unique to pregnancy. Similarly lacking it seems is the listed properties that supposedly characterize “personhood” such as presented by Mary Anne Warren. That with each of these qualifications, there exists some parallel situation that applies to a human being outside the womb.

[@chrisholtorf9906]

its a workshop

[@exerciserelax8719]

What do you think was lacking in his presentation of the argument?

[@PrevailVideos]

Almost every law limits what we can do with our body. First, heroin is illegal. That's the govt telling us what we can and cannot put in our body. If we have this supreme right to our body, heroin should be legal. If we don't want heroin to be legal, perhaps we should agree there are some reasonable limits to put on our bodily autonomy. Second, not using force against another human being is a limit on what we can do with our body. Not yelling fire in a movie theater is also a limit. When the use of our body is going to result in violating the rights of others, it is generally limited.

[@PrevailVideos]

Jasmine Yousefipour This is more complex because the parents created a human and everything that human does they're biologically forced to do by the parents. So it is not accurate to say the parents did not consent or to imply the unborn human is trespassing. The parents created the vital need to be within the mother as well. Any time someone creates a vital need for another human and then refuses to provide for that vital need so that the human dies, it is the same as directly killing.

[@PrevailVideos]

When two people create another human, regardless of whether or not that was their intent, they have an obligation to the human they created.

[@PrevailVideos]

That's the ground for laws against child neglect - that humans have an obligation to the human they've created and that the obligation remains unless or until it is transferred. That obligation is violated when there's an abortion.

[@PrevailVideos]

Adoption is a great option for many people. The obligation to care for the child is transferred to those who agree to care for them. As you may know, extreme circumstances like pregnancy from rape are a very low percentage of the over 1 million abortions that occur in the US. Those extreme circumstances should be left up to the democratic process to decide because the legal and moral questions are more complicated in those situations. But, why use the very rare circumstance to try to justify creating and killing over 1 million humans each year? You felt the need to highlight my gender, as though my gender should exclude me from having an opinion on abortion, but consider that half of the humans that are killed in the womb are female. Is it pro-woman to advocate for a position that results in over 500,000 female humans aborted in the womb each year in the US or do I have the pro-woman position since I want to see girls in the womb have their right to live legally protected and their inherent value protected by society? Finally, if the vital need was created by the mother and she does not fulfill that need, she has committed a crime. Take the example of one person stabbing (without legal justification) another person so they need blood. They're the only person around that can give them a blood transfusion, they know how and they have the equipment to do so. If they do not give them their blood and the person they stabbed dies, they will be found guilty for murder. Why? Because they created the vital need - the need for the blood - by their act. When two people come together and create a human, they create the vital need that human has to be in the womb of their mom. That's why when two people create a human, they have an obligation to provide due care for that human unless or until that obligation is transferred. Intentionally aborting the unborn human is a clear violation of that obligation.

[@jamessmith4287]

It's illegal to reauire someone to donate blood

[@joshuabradley5541]

At about 9:35 he hits the nail on the head. Thompson 1st agrees that unborn is a child, human being, then concludes that the mothers duty is equal to the duty of a complete Stranger.

[@Wolf88888]

I hold that from an ethical standpoint, a society has a right to demand that each one of its citizens should exercise their individual rights in a responsible manner. I might, for example, have a 'right' to bear a firearm. That right, however, does not entitle me to wave a loaded weapon at innocent people in a dangerous manner. In the same way, a woman's right to bodily autonomy does not give her an unlimited right to act irresponsibly. If she knowingly exercises her right to bodily autonomy by engaging in sexual intercourse, then she should accept the natural consequences that are a likely result of the exercise of that right--namely, pregnancy. To me, abortion is like a person who goes to the bank and takes out a loan, but then, after spending the money and reading the terms for repayment, decides to kill the loan officer who gave them the money. It's simply narcissistic and irresponsible.

[@orangeorangeorange5075]

you are with your baby at your house and get snowed in. You don't have formula and but you have easy access to your breastmilk. You decide to exercise your right to bodily autonomy to not breastfeed your baby until they starve to death. Should I be prosecuted in this situation? Why or why not? Would I be prosecuted?

[@87deistarr]

First, the fact that everyone who has consensual sex needs to be prepared for the possibility of pregnancy; second, that it's not natural for a mother to kill her own child; third, that a pregnant woman can do everything a non-pregnant woman can do, except drink; fourth, actively killing someone is different from simply withholding support. I could go on, but that's enough for now... he does a very good job of refuting arguements. As someone who's had unplanned children, pregnancy is no prison.

[@miaa7097]

I had 5 abortions. its safest method of birth control for woman Im not gone take hormones so some religious zealous can feel good about themselves American tax payers paid for wars that killed million of pregnant women. its not about the fetus its about controlling women's body

[@DJ-cb5yl]

@@miaa7097 Imagine comparing the mass genocide of babies, to pregnant woman killed in war. How many abortion happen yearly ? Now compare that to all pregnant woman killed in all wars combined. Tax payer dollars faught off some of the greatest threat to mankind. Nazis, slave owners, and tyrannical dictators. Civilized countries tend to be against the murder of children, not only religous groups.

[@eli1513]

@@miaa7097 you're on a killstreak jesus

[@Stormkrow280]

Never use the term “natural” without understanding the context of that term, which is “found in nature” or “Occurs in nature” and in fact, mothers do kill their own children for a variety of reasons, mostly likely because the parents aren’t in a position to properly care for their offspring and will kill off, or let the weaker offspring die, in order to support the stronger offspring of the litter, or for future offspring down the line.

[@jamessmith4287]

A more accurate comparison would be if every single 5 yr old in the world needed blood to survive for human nature reasons until they turned 6. Not just special cases if they had a problem. Don't you think it would go against neglect laws for the parents to not do so?

[@andrewkeltner3692]

This progressively gets more and more out of hand. I congratulate them on finding controversial points to incite interest, but after about 20 min, almost everything said is built on some principle they themselves create. And on dealing with human duty. No mention of Kant?????

[@LtDeadeye]

To be fair though, this is but one part of a cumulative case. The earlier videos substantiate their principles.

[@andrewkeltner3692]

I'll have to check those out. I thought the conversation was really interesting, but I disagreed with the method a bit and discussion of duty. For example, duty should be something like an obligation. Another issue was that most of these examples seemed really far fetched. If you were to take them and break the down into presuppositions, they are not even close to bordering a probability for linear reasoning. I am not sure of legal hypotheticals, and what I am talking about is based on Socratic dialogue.

[@raikkonen85]

Andrew Keltner all these examples were not made up but are written in text books. They are crazy in the lengths they go to defend abortion. But it is enjoyable to listen

[@Feronom]

@@raikkonen85 wow,calling people the ”lengths to go” while pro choice do not ”go lentghts”? Talk about supremacy and self centeredness. Rights my ass, it called totalitariasm, dictatorship thinking you are ”normal" while nobody else is. Guess what, Hitler thought so too

[@dariusnoname12]

Scott Klusendorf in this video didn't attack main aspects of bodily autonomy argument. One of which is that you can refuse to giving a kidney to you two year old children. Main point of this video was attacking analogy. Specific analogy I might add. But anyway here is my reply to this video. First person(Thomson): 1st. He states woman having willing sex is enough to make bodily autonomy argument incorrect(cause it is no longer parallel). That is not correct, because same would apply if that violinist in example was your child. 2nd. His statement that withholding the support is the same as having a pillow on someones face and saying your are withholding oxygen from it, is incorrect. Mainly because withholding the support means that you were willingly giving something to the fetus and then stopped that. And Pillow is forcefully taking something away. Pillow analogy would be correct if for example pillow would weight a lot and you had to hold it up so child wouldn't suffocate. When you get tired and just stop holding that pillow, that would be withholding the support. 3rd. Main point was about duty. That is stupid argument. A: Despite having duty to our children we have foster care. That means that duty is not main aspect of having a child. B: It is not clear on what is that duty is or who gave it to use it in law. Duty is broad term. It is the same as using emotion on laws. For example, you are guilty if someone is angry. It is hard to explain this part, if you have questions about it, ask. 4th. He is saying that bodily autonomy argument only applies to pregnancy is wrong(I got it from him saying that it is different when woman is pregnant and after giving birth). That is wrong because if we give same rights to fetus as we do to other human beings, woman could still refuse giving direct support to a fetus as she could to already born child. 5th. About child only accepting mothers milk. Well given our current laws, mother can still give away child to foster care. 6th. Taking drugs is for pregnant woman is kind of gray area. I am against doing something that would deform child(Based on emotion), but there is no alternative to allowing that. Well there is, but that would mean you are taking away rights from pregnant woman, which would mean she doesn't have freedom of her body, she is lesser human being(prisoner in her own body would be correct statement in this case). 7th. Answer to question on 25:00. He makes slitting a throat to refusing a direct support. That is wrong, based on what I said above. 8th. Answer to question on 27:00 about woman cutting a limb. Well, physicians can't do that based on a law(because they can only do operations that would benefit us). But yeah, I think I would want to have right to do that, or to kill myself(and not be imprisoned because you are in danger of yourself). Second person ( Macdonath ): 1st. I agree that pregnancy is not an assault, but I agree on statement that having consent to sex is not the same as having consent to abortion. 2nd. Abortion has to be paid privately, not by tax payers(weird that someone would think otherwise). But other than that McDonath's arguments are extreme, mainly because with her argument you give right to kill a fetus instead of refusing support.(big difference). 3rd. 42:00 about feeding a child. You are not forced to feed a child, you can always give it to the foster care. 4th. 42:00 About child support. I have to agree that right now, where woman tend to use men for only sake as to get money is wrong. There has to be some change(I never thought about this more, so right now I have no idea what changes are possible) Third person (Bolin) 1st. First example about physician is correct. Why would physician should be forced to give blood to patient if all he did was to do his job? That is simply same argument as the first one(from Thomson) 2nd. Trying to remove parallels in this type of arguments is simply stupid, cause you can change that analogy, so patient is also a son to physician. Now parallels that he destroyed, still holds strong. A problem that all pro-live or pro-choise people make is going all out to one extreme side. This way you are extremely hurting opposite side. For example pro-life people are simply taking away rights and freedom from pregnant woman by making her something less human. Pro-choise(All other that are not based on refusal on support) say that murder is OK if someone tries to use you as support.

[@nityasharma5795]

Yeah,and I have something to add to his acutane and drugs argument, having laws that prevent people from doing drugs affect peoples bodily autonomy in a much smaller way than forcing someone into an unwanted pregnancy, in the case of a crack addict, idk, I mean what she did was obviously wrong, but how can you legally require someone to undergo a c section.

[@pelumiobasa3104]

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the pillow analogy. The pillow analogy is powerful because abortion is not just withholding life support to an unhealthy human being it is actively killing a perfectly healthy human being either dismembering a child in utero via suction abortion or DNE or literally cutting off air and blood via an abortion pill it is the difference between watching someone drown and doing nothing about it to actively pushing someone in a river who drowns it’s the act and intention to kill that matters not the refusal to act

[@michaelhunt372]

Bringing up foster care misses the point. A woman lucky enough to live in modern society has the privilege of choosing baby formula or giving the child up. But, without that (and it is pretty recent in human history that there is any alternative to breast milk for anyone), she has a automatic moral obligation to breastfeed her child herself and she is a murderer if she refuses. Kidney donation is not an appropriate comparison, because it is an extraordinary measure and kidney failure is a gross pathology, not a normal part of child development. In most cases, responsibility for bringing a child into existence can be reasonably separated from responsibility for their kidney ailment. And, transplants still do not work much of the time anyway. That cannot be said for the need for pregnancy and breastfeeding. All children need those by the nature of who they are, so by engaging in sexual intercourse that results if child creation, there is an automatic responsibility for fulfilling those needs. Period. Of course, if you think the right to life does not begin with conception, you can argue that, but that is another debate.

[@chrisarmon1002]

I have a question, if a women only option was to breast feed and there was no other way to feed that child. Would you agree she should have the right to refuse breast feeding that child ?

[@jamessmith4287]

@@michaelhunt372 it's a little bit of a stretch too, because pregnancy is pretty life threatening and body altering shile breastfeeding not really. Let's say if every single 5 yr old needed blood until they were 6 for a human nature reason, I guarantee neglect laws would go against not doing so. However, let's take it further if donating a kidney was a part of nature at age of 5, would it be required to do so? Even if donsting the kidney was life threatening? We will never know.

[@neoepicurean3772]

He says that no one outside of academia would buy these arguments, but no one outside of a religious belief systems would think that 8 cells human is equivalent to a fully grown human person.

[@Feronom]

Absolutely not true, there are atheists pro life

[@neoepicurean3772]

@@Feronom I'm an atheist and pro-life. But you will not find someone outside of a religious belief system that would think 8 cells is EQUIVALENT to a fully grown human. Have you seen what 8 cells looks like?

[@Feronom]

@@neoepicurean3772 does that really matter? 8 cells is human being in the first stage of development. Of course that human is not the same as human in later stage of development. Nobody is saying that human is the same. What pro lifers say is that human, in the beginning stage of development, should have the same basic rights as any other human. One of those basic right is the right to life.

[@neoepicurean3772]

@@Feronom But have you seen what 8 cells looks like? I have never said that those 8 cells are not a human being - they are - what I am saying is that no one who is not using a religious filter could possibly look at those 8 cells next to a 10 year child and suggest they are looking at two beings of equal value.

[@Feronom]

@@neoepicurean3772 well, I haven't seen in live. Did you? I've seen photos, not sure if it's exactly 8 but more or less. But you are not religious and yet you say it's a human being. I'm sure there's more people non religious people with same opinion, right?

[@dagwould]

An MIT philosopher? A philosopher in an engineering school! Who's have thought.

[@ifeelfine72]

Where did he say MIT philosopher? This is Biola University which is one of the more fundamentalist Christian schools in the country.

[@billsimkulet2145]

Parasitic connection? I've never heard this analysis of Thomson; but the definition of parasite Klusendorf raises here seems incredibly arbitrary and misleading. Unfortunately Klusendorf makes a common mistake early on with regards to the Violinist Case; this case has clear parallels to pregnancy resulting from rape and Thomson's position is that (1) A fetus can have a right to life, but (2) a woman can still have a right to abort it. If you accept that abortion in rape cases is morally acceptable - and most people do - then Thomson's argument against the anti-abortion theorist argument succeeds regardless of how close the violinist case is to normal pregnancy. Let me make this explicit: If you think that abortion in rape cases is acceptable, but abortion in consensual sex cases is not, then you should be able to construct a moral principle (a consent principle, negligence principle, etc.) that makes this distinction. Unfortunately attempts to construct such a principle seem to dictate that (by not getting a hysterectomy) women who are raped have consented to becoming pregnant, these principles fail to match up with our commonsense intuitions. So it's back to the drawing board for anti-abortion theorists; or - like John Martin Fischer - bite the bullet and accept that abortion in rape cases is seriously morally wrong.

[@myintx]

Unborn children are human beings - no matter how they are conceived. Human beings shouldn't be killed just because they are inconvenient or unwanted.

[@raikkonen85]

Bill Simkulet lets be clear. Very few pregnancies are from the result of rape. But pro abortionists like to hide behind rape victims rather than defend statements on abortion

[@IowaRonin]

Hexl702 I think you're assuming the unborn isn't human. This is video #12. I suggest that you start from the beginning.

[@IowaRonin]

Hexl702 Congratulations. How did you come to that conclusion?

[@IowaRonin]

Hexl702 What about the child's physical liberty and bodily autonomy? How is it the mother can decide what pain that child suffers? Have you considered the implications of your view?

[@justaperson1144]

Requiring belief that 'baby is a stranger' is not the hard part here though. They are a stranger in the obvious sense you haven't yet met in the objective world... but surrogates mothers give away the children they carry all of the time and remain strangers to them. Does the actual DNA of the child matter in defining 'strangerness'? One is responsibile for vitally supporting the human cells to become a human baby but one is not responsible for it as a human baby. Women make the argument that they do not want to carry a baby they do not want to keep. They want their baby when they want their baby, essentially, and women have been controlling this since they could (a big reason behind witch trials being used to persecute women with such medical knowledge) Maybe it makes no difference, inside is inside but it still begs the definition of responsibility. Define responsibility?? Strangerness?

[@lisaratley4858]

The minimization of pregnancy by this creep is astounding.

[@SK-ou4gt]

the anti-abortion movement is largely women who hate women for having sex.

[@hoodered4070]

Im 8 mins in and everything said is completely wrong. Maybe if you had some pro choice people there they could point that out to you.

[@raikkonen85]

Hoodered so point it out

[@scl97]

To be fair this man has debated many pro choicers and has clearly read much of their material. He says their names because those pro choice philosophers speak for themselves but they are indeed pro choice philosophers that he has read.

[@SK-ou4gt]

magnified Rick Moranis.

[@justaperson1144]

Autonomy is all important for at the end of the day whatever is in or on or attached is just that and secondary to self, is not you and without you you are nothing/dead, as is that other. Primary concern defaults to self, that should be a right. And it is, that is autonomy, your body your choice. No forced vaccines would be a relative point of discussion ). One has the right to be selfish about oneself I suppose.

[@Wolf88888]

Respectfully, you should think more deeply. Is autonomy, TRULY 'all important', as you say--particularly, with regard to situations where the exercise of that right would knowingly cause the death or injury of another person? For example, would I have the right to block the sole exit to a burning building with my body simply because I have a right to do whatever I want with my body? In addition, every right contains implicit responsibilities for the proper exercise of that right. I might have a right to self-protection, but I don't necessarily have a right to wave a loaded firearm around like an irresponsible jackass. If a woman exercises her right to bodily autonomy by engaging in sexual intercourse, she needs to accept the responsibilities that go along with exercising that right in that particular way. Namely, she needs to accept the likelihood of pregnancy, and the fact that a human being with its own set of rights that she has no right to infringe upon are the likely result of her actions.

[@finishstrongdoc]

You're a nice old lady who always stood up for a woman's right to choose,saying "My body,my choice; leave your hands off my body." Just then you need your adult diaper changed, and a nice young lady comes into your room. You ask her to help you. And she says," Your body, your choice; my hands, my choice." The nice young lady looks a lot like you did when you were her age, and you decided to choose abortion. You don't have to be an academic to really screw things up, but it helps.

[@laurentbrodie5870]

That's performing an obligation that one has consented to, assuming that this young lady is an employee at the retirement home whose job it is to change diapers, If she's just a random stranger, she's not obligated in any way.

[@pickelop860]

If a woman has absolute obligation to feed the child, we have absolute obligation to wear masks and vaccinate in order to save the life of a single life. We are currently arguing the opposite.

[@joshuabradley5541]

Pickelop• I will have to disagree. Parents, not just women, have a duty to be responsible for themselves, and their children. As far as a duty to wear a mask, or vaccinate....well, those are options similar to washing your hands, brushing teeth, bathing, chewing with your mouth closed, none of which are issues or morality.

[@terraguttierez2996]

@@joshuabradley5541 of course it has something to do with morality. If you are potentially sick and you go see your grandmother anyway, she contracts covid and dies, then she died due to your negligence. if you go around with out a mask, eventually catch covid and spread it to 10 people, both deontological and utalitarian modes of morality would find that as immoral Deontological- we should look out for our best interests and the best interests of others, so long as they do not hurt us.Youre actively hurting others, wearing a mask doesnt hurt you, in fact it actually protects you.Knowing all that information and still recklessly acting in a manner that harms yourself and others is immoral. Just like texting and driving is immoral, youre actively acting recklessly, endangering others. Utalitatianism- you get sick, and spread it to more people. More people have died because of your actions. You put your wants above the needs of the many. the needs of the many outweigh your need to walk around without a mask on cause i cant breathe despite no actual doctor saying that its detrimental to you

[@orangeorangeorange5075]

They already do have the obligation. Neglect laws exist

[@ifeelfine72]

As a former pro-life devotee (I even marched in a few parades), I keep looking for a good rebuttal to the Jarvis-Thomson argument. Unfortunately this wasn’t it. As a philosopher, he’s either dishonest or not very good. This guy clearly has an agenda and axe to grind. He presents a lot of false choices, philosophical canards and pure conjecture. This video is more one-sided, quasi-religious reasoning and falls flat unfortunately.

[@wapiti7151]

He lost me when he mentioned a female philosopher.