堕胎、权利和船舱案件。

William Simkulet
{"title":"堕胎、权利和船舱案件。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
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
Abortion, Rights, and Cabin Cases.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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