11/19/2022 0 Comments Judith jarvis thomson![]() There are times when conditions significantly threaten fetuses outside of the control of others and, if born, face an extremely low-quality of life. Like Thomson’s thought-experiment, this people-seed argument is also comparable to abortion. What if the people-seed shows deformities that will significantly hinder it as it continues to grow? If from the beginning, a person was fully aware of any of these situations, they might not be acting in the best interest of the people-seed if they chose to let it remain in the carpet. What if the carpet is moldy or requires removal in the near future? The person could choose to let it remain there and let grow into a person, but many circumstances can affect whether that decision would be in the best interest of the people-seed. We have agreed that if a people-seed flies through a person’s windows and burrows itself into their carpet, it does not have the right to remain there. To elaborate on this, we can use a variation of Thomson’s people-seed argument. There are times in which a fetus is better off not being born. Moreover, there are instances in which the fetus is better off not claiming that right. Nonetheless, it would be a kindness, not necessary an obligation, as the right to their house trumps the people-seeds right to remain in their carpet.Ī woman’s right to her body surpasses the fetus’ right to life. As mentioned above in the people-seed argument, one would be considered a Good Samaritan if they allow the people-seed to remain in their home. Thomson argues that no one is obliged to be a Good Samaritan and for that reason, people must only be Minimally Decent Persons. They do what is required by them as members of society, but they do not go above and beyond, unlike Good Samaritans. Minimally Decent Persons are just that minimally decent. Thomson proceeds to point out the dissimilarities between Minimally Decent Persons and Good Samaritans, during the latter of this her paper. The argument is somewhat similar to pregnancy following voluntary intercourse with the mesh screens being equal to contraception, the house equal to the body, and the people-seeds equal to the fetus). It would be kind to let it remain there and grow, but it is indeed not necessary. If one of those people-seeds got into the house through a defective screen, would you let it remain rooted in your carpet even though you voluntarily opened the window? Does it have a right to remain in there? No, of course, it does not. ![]() It is essential to use beautiful mesh screens and to use people-seed repellent around the house to keep the people-seeds out. She tells the story of people-seeds drifting about in the air like pollen into people’s houses. Secondly, she uses the story of people-seeds to argue that if a woman had voluntary intercourse, she has the right to an abortion if was to become pregnant. ![]() It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in” (Vaughn pg. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |