Abortion Ban Advocates and Rape Exception.

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pub Date : 2024-09-24 DOI:10.1007/s11673-024-10374-8
Ł Dominiak
{"title":"Abortion Ban Advocates and Rape Exception.","authors":"Ł Dominiak","doi":"10.1007/s11673-024-10374-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present paper argues that abortion ban advocates can justify an exception for rape. Recently, Blackshaw offered an interesting argument that if abortion ban advocates modified their position along the lines of Thomson's analysis of rights, they could make an exception for rape. However, doing so would require making concessions they would be unlikely to make, the crucial one being subscribing to an absurd view that abortion in the case of rape is permissible but only if it is performed in a certain way, that is, in a way that withdraws life support from the fetus. Agreeing first with Blackshaw's premises, we argue that the view in question is hardly absurd. Thus, relying on Boonin's acknowledgment that although very rare, a position according to which abortion should be legal but only if it is performed in a way that lets the fetus die rather than kills it is a possible position, we argue, first, that it is Blackshaw's position that is inconsistent, second, that since deontology sees permissibility of a given result as path-dependent, deontologically oriented abortion ban advocates should find the view in question appealing rather than absurd and, third, that although there are indeed scenarios in which withdrawing life support is morally equivalent to killing, extraction abortions in the case of rape are not amongst them. Since in the case of rape the fetus is not entitled to life support, extraction abortions are better classified as permissible non-omissive allowings than impermissible killings. Thus, there is nothing absurd in the view that abortion in the case of rape is permissible but only if it is performed in a certain way. Accordingly, adopting this view does not seem to be much of a concession for abortion ban advocates who can therefore make an exception for rape.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-024-10374-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present paper argues that abortion ban advocates can justify an exception for rape. Recently, Blackshaw offered an interesting argument that if abortion ban advocates modified their position along the lines of Thomson's analysis of rights, they could make an exception for rape. However, doing so would require making concessions they would be unlikely to make, the crucial one being subscribing to an absurd view that abortion in the case of rape is permissible but only if it is performed in a certain way, that is, in a way that withdraws life support from the fetus. Agreeing first with Blackshaw's premises, we argue that the view in question is hardly absurd. Thus, relying on Boonin's acknowledgment that although very rare, a position according to which abortion should be legal but only if it is performed in a way that lets the fetus die rather than kills it is a possible position, we argue, first, that it is Blackshaw's position that is inconsistent, second, that since deontology sees permissibility of a given result as path-dependent, deontologically oriented abortion ban advocates should find the view in question appealing rather than absurd and, third, that although there are indeed scenarios in which withdrawing life support is morally equivalent to killing, extraction abortions in the case of rape are not amongst them. Since in the case of rape the fetus is not entitled to life support, extraction abortions are better classified as permissible non-omissive allowings than impermissible killings. Thus, there is nothing absurd in the view that abortion in the case of rape is permissible but only if it is performed in a certain way. Accordingly, adopting this view does not seem to be much of a concession for abortion ban advocates who can therefore make an exception for rape.

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
堕胎禁令倡导者与强奸例外。
本文认为,禁止堕胎的倡导者可以证明强奸例外是合理的。最近,布莱克肖(Blackshaw)提出了一个有趣的论点,即如果堕胎禁令倡导者按照汤姆森对权利的分析修改他们的立场,他们就可以将强奸作为例外情况。然而,这样做需要他们做出不太可能做出的让步,其中最关键的一点是认同一种荒谬的观点,即在强奸案中堕胎是允许的,但前提是必须以某种方式进行堕胎,也就是撤走胎儿的生命支持。首先,我们同意布莱克肖的前提,认为这种观点并不荒谬。因此,博宁承认,尽管堕胎非常罕见,但如果堕胎的方式是让胎儿死亡而不是杀死胎儿,那么堕胎就应该是合法的,这是一种可能的立场,根据博宁的这一承认,我们首先论证布莱克肖的立场是不一致的,其次论证布莱克肖的立场是不一致的、第三,尽管在某些情况下,撤除生命支持在道德上等同于杀人,但强奸案中的堕胎并不属于这种情况。因为在强奸案中,胎儿无权获得生命支持,所以抽取式人工流产与其说是不允许的杀戮,不如说是允许的非默许。因此,强奸案中的堕胎是允许的,但必须以某种方式进行,这种观点并不荒谬。因此,采纳这一观点似乎并不是禁止堕胎的倡导者所做出的让步,他们可以因此将强奸作为例外情况。
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
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies
期刊最新文献
Priorities in the Protection of Citizens Who Have Fallen into Enemy Hands. "Expensive Sisters". Clinicians' Perspectives and an Ethical Analysis of Safer Supply Opioid Prescribing. A Response to "Humanities Beyond the Disciplines: Imaginative Activism". Re-imagining and Remembering in Gaza: A Response to Spivak's Humanities Beyond the Disciplines: Imaginative Activism.
×
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