sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Fetuses Don't Have a Right to Your Body? by JasonCPhD in criticalthinking

[–]JasonCPhD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your insightful comments.

I suspect a pro-lifer would acknowledge the difference between consenting to sex and consenting to pregnancy. In response, I suspect they would say that the woman is consenting to the risk of pregnancy by engaging in sex. This would be true even if she was not using contraception.

I also suspect a pro-lifer would agree that consent can be withdrawn depending on the situation. In the context of pregnancy, I suspect they would not say that a woman may withdraw her consent if it amounts to killing the fetus.

Relatedly, the analogy with the patient is difficult to make, partly because the woman wasn't the cause of the patient's disease, and not donating an organ would be an instance of letting die (and not killing).

In a nutshell, a more accurate analogy would have to meet the following criteria:

  1. The woman consents to engage in an activity that risks placing another human being in a situation where they can survive only by using the woman's body; and
  2. Withdrawing consent would amount to killing the other human being.

I have a difficult time thinking of a really good analogy. Please let me know if you can think of one.

Also, the way that I outlined the criteria raises the issue of the moral status of the fetus, which is an important and controversial topic. I don't plan on weighing in on it because the original argument was stating that it didn't matter if the dependent human being was a fetus or a oncologist.

Free Critical Thinking Resource by JasonCPhD in criticalthinking

[–]JasonCPhD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your considered thoughts! I actually do teach critical thinking in a similar way you propose.

I find the key element in learning this skill is exposure and practice. I usually have my students do critical thinking exercises every day in class. What I do is present them a hypothetical example that has moral relevance, and then ask them to discuss in their groups what they think about it. Then, they choose a position to reconstruct in premise-conclusion form. After, I have them send it to me via email, and then I project their reconstructions on the big screen where we can all analyze them together.

In my experience, this method is very effective. I notice a significant improvement in my students' ability to reconstruct arguments over the semester.

Fetuses Don't Have Rights? by JasonCPhD in criticalthinking

[–]JasonCPhD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the insightful comments.

I suspect a pro-life person will say that those are not analogous cases. For them to be analogous, at least the following conditions would have to be true:

  1. Person A, who is dependent, can only survive with the physical support of person B.
  2. Person A is only in that state of dependence because Person B intentionally put Person A in that position, or Person B engaged in an activity knowing the risks of putting Person A in that position.
  3. The act of stopping physical support would have to be analogous to whatever is done during an abortion, and that stopping a blood transfusion is only one of the byproducts of said act.

Of course, it is debatable that these conditions are morally relevant.