Dworkin's opening salvo announces the major theme of his book: "Abortion, which means deliberately killing a developing human embryo, and euthanasia, which means deliberately killing a person out of kindness, are both choices for death. The first chooses death before life in earnest has begun, the second after it has ended." Just this quickly does his argument go astray. He seeks to create a parallelism between abortion and euthanasia by the repetition of the phrase "deliberately killing" in both contexts. But this first sentence is remarkably unresponsive to the paramount questions of interest, consent, and choice.
On the question of abortion, Dworkin marshals a wide array of philosophic and legal arguments to defend the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed each woman a constitutional right to abortion. It is a huge moral controversy because some believe life starts when the sprem meets the egg. The legal definition (i believe) is that life begins when you take your first breath. In other words, abortion is not murder. It's not to say that third-trimester abortions are just, but certain abortions should be legal. On the argument that it is immoral to abort a pregnancy after the sperm has firtilized the egg is quiestionable. "The killing that is done in an abortion is done by the mother to the embryo, without its consent and against its interest." It is much more morally just to abort a pregnance if the mother is aware of how unfit she is. I'm not saying that we should all not use protection and just get an abortion everytime we get pregnant but In the extreme... If a cracked out woman is selling herself for drugs and gets pregnant, it is unfair to the unborn child to be given a life that may result in permanent damage and an overall horrible life, if even one at all. In the begining of the third-trimester, the babies eyes have started to open, the bones become fully developed, pupils contrict and dialate, and even though the lungs arn't completely formed, the baby can practice breathing. I strongly disagree with third-trimester abortions, one the baby can think and dream and is very close to labor.
With regard to euthanasia, Dworkin defends the right of each individual, again on philosophic and constitutional grounds, to end his life when his personal condition is one of endless misery or falls into the void of a permanent vegetative state. I also agree with this. Each individual has the right to live and the right to die. That's not to say that someone else cand ecide that for you. Looking at the case we talked about in class, i believe it was not the parent's right to keep her on the feeding or take her off. I personally don't belive in artificial life and that God's will is God's way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I contradict myself by saying I agree with abortion. To clarify, I agree to some extent. I feel that it is the woman's right to do what she feels is morally right (afterall it is her own body). However, i dont feel that it is right to be able to abort after the embryo develops a heart beat.
ReplyDelete