regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (04/25/85)
>Andrew: > >> I was really trying to address the argument that Paul Dubuc and >> others have been advancing lately that goes something like this: >> >> "A woman who has sex runs the risk of becoming >> pregnant. Having an abortion is an attempt to >> evade the responsibility for taking that risk, >> and is therefore immoral." >> >> I wanted to illustrate that that argument is bogus by applying the >> same argument to some other everyday risk. Geez, at least Paul has the grace to mention that the responsibility belongs on the shoulders of BOTH parties, not just the woman. >Yes, you're quite right. That argument, as it stands, is bogus (kind >of nice we can agree about something :-). The important question is >"how does one go about evading the responsibility" (i.e. what are the >implications of fixing things up)? In the auto accident case, there are >no externalities. If you terminate a pregnancy, there are. ". . .there are" according to whom? If a fetus is _not_ a human (as is maintained by a number of people), the whole argument goes nowhere. >Suppose, however, that you are in an accident, and some vital organ >were destroyed. The doctors inform you that a transplant will work with >little risk to yourself, but there just aren't any donors. You could, >of course, force someone else to give you one, but that person would >then die. What do you do? You presuppose we are talking of a human donor. This misses the argument. > >Suppose the organ wasn't vital, but lack of it would have a very negative >impact on your life. What then? > >An even more interesting question (which I think has been asked >before): what if the organ were vital for you, but not for the other >person? > >To sum up: yeah, we all take risks and make mistakes, but how far >should you be allowed to go in righting them? > > Just asking, > Ed Sheppard > Bellcore Would it be "moral" to get this required organ from a non-human donor? From a primate? From a "organ generation bank"?