Abortion, Rights, and Cabin Cases.

William Simkulet
{"title":"Abortion, Rights, and Cabin Cases.","authors":"William Simkulet","doi":"10.1080/20502877.2022.2116768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many people believe the morality of abortion stands or falls on the moral status of the fetus, with abortion opponents arguing fetuses are persons with a right to life. Judith Jarvis Thomson bypasses this debate, arguing that even if we assume fetuses have a right to life, this is not a right to use other people's bodies. Recently Perry Hendricks attempts to bypass discussion of rights, assuming that if he can show that some people have a right to use other's bodies, then we ought to restrict abortion (and perhaps compel organ donation, charity, etc.). Hendricks attempts to illustrate this by way of a Feinberg-style cabin case. I argue Hendricks' restrictivist argument fails.</p>","PeriodicalId":43760,"journal":{"name":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","volume":"28 4","pages":"315-326"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2022.2116768","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Many people believe the morality of abortion stands or falls on the moral status of the fetus, with abortion opponents arguing fetuses are persons with a right to life. Judith Jarvis Thomson bypasses this debate, arguing that even if we assume fetuses have a right to life, this is not a right to use other people's bodies. Recently Perry Hendricks attempts to bypass discussion of rights, assuming that if he can show that some people have a right to use other's bodies, then we ought to restrict abortion (and perhaps compel organ donation, charity, etc.). Hendricks attempts to illustrate this by way of a Feinberg-style cabin case. I argue Hendricks' restrictivist argument fails.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
堕胎、权利和船舱案件。
许多人认为堕胎的道德与否取决于胎儿的道德地位,反对堕胎的人认为胎儿是有生命权的人。朱迪斯·贾维斯·汤姆森绕开了这一争论,认为即使我们假设胎儿有生命权,也没有权利使用他人的身体。最近佩里·亨德里克斯试图绕开权利的讨论,假设如果他能证明有些人有权使用他人的身体,那么我们就应该限制堕胎(也许还可以强制器官捐赠,慈善事业等)。亨德里克斯试图通过范伯格式的机舱案例来说明这一点。我认为亨德里克斯的限制主义论点是失败的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
A quantitative analysis of stored frozen surplus embryos in the UK. Moral Distress and its Impact on Healthcare Workers in a European NICU. Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Decision-Making: Gross Negligence Manslaughter and Corporate Manslaughter. Machine learning, healthcare resource allocation, and patient consent. The Fertility Fix: the Boom in Facial-matching Algorithms for Donor Selection in Assisted Reproduction in Spain.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1