You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘abortion’ tag.

I had an exam on Thursday, and let me tell you, it was a shocker. This was for Contemporary Political Theory, where we’ve been applying political philosophy to contentious issues, so I answered the question on abortion, who’s debate was better? Marquis or Tooley?

Now, if you remember from my earlier posts, Tooley is the one who says if you accept abortion, you accept infanticide, and I argued that infanticide doesn’t exist in the state of Western Australia.

Marquis trumps Tooley and his argument goes along the lines of “if you accept abortion, you accept euthanasia” or something like that. It’s complex and not as interesting as Tooley’s or Jarvis’ (Jarvis is the one where the magical violinist is plugged into your kidneys).

Anyways, the point of this post is that I had an unusual dream last night.

I dreamt that I got pregnant to someone who’d also taken the unit (this person didn’t have a name or face, but that says nothing because of the 60 people who take the unit, only about 10 show up on a weekly basis and only about 2 of them are boys so whatevs). ANYWAYS, as I was saying, I got pregnant in my dream and me and the nameless, faceless father sat there, deciding whether or not to abort the baby, based on the various arguments of Tooley, Jarvis and Marquis.

Now see THIS is what they mean when they talk about something “taking over your life”. Seriously, why would I base my decision to have a baby (if I were to fall pregnant) on the ridiculous arguments of three political philosophers?

I seriously need to get away from uni.

However, before I spend this week trying to cleanse my mind, body and soul of uni-related ridculouslness, I shall share this criminal case I recently learnt about:

Mr Langham bought a crossbow from a shop for $675. He changed his mind and took it back for a refund. Anyways, the shop would only give him store credit, and would not refund his money. Using some of the credit, he purchased a gun.

Later on, armed with the gun, Langham returned to the shop and held them up, demanding the balance of $301 back.

The shop assistants handed over $300, but Langham continued to demand that last dollar. (Would he have given them $4 change, had they handed over $305?)

Of course, Mr Langham was charged with armed robbery. But seriously, this has to be one of the funniest cases ever – all he wanted was his money back. Did he have a reasonable claim? Maybe.

Alright, that’s it for today, and I’m on uni-holidays for the next week, so I don’t know if I’ll have anything worth blogging over, but if you wanna do something for me, go sign the petition at http://www.savemidnightsun.com/home.aspx, so that MAYBE one day, us Twilighters will own our own copy of Midnight Sun, which we’re all so desperately hoping Meyer will change her mind on.

Thank you my choo choos!

We are once again discussiong abortion. Now, my problem with this discussion isn’t the actual topic of abortion itself. It’s the focus we put on abortion and the amount of attention it garners when mentioned.

My problem that, we spend so much time debating the issue of abortion and whether or not it’s right, we forget the core of the issue: unprotected sex.

Now, assuming that the unwanted baby is not the result of an act of rape, but rather voluntary intercourse, the question should be: Why wasn’t protection used?

See, we talk so much about the right to life and whether or not the mother has the right to abort the baby, and we push our views and we protest this issue so much that we forget about the basic education.

Shouldn’t we be protesting and pushing for the education of safe sex? Of the consequences that might occur as a result of sex, even with all precautions taken. It makes sense, really.

Of course, there’s still a slim chance that pregnancy will occur, but according to some arguments, the more precautions you take the less responsible you are. (Well, according to an argument from political philosopher Judith Thompson.)

Once again I’m not going to push my beliefs – I honestly don’t know if I’m pro-choice or pro-life, it’s a messy decision and one I’m not willing to make yet. But I never want to force someone into doing something they don’t want to, which means I guess I’m pro-choice.

Really, I’d rather just take the pro-education stance, however. Openness in discussion and easy access to proper precautions would no doubt make atleast some difference. Then maybe we wouldn’t have this issue and all would be solved.

Eh, in our dreams. 😛

I’m out.

p.s. Louise, shut up.

p.p.s. obviously my argument doesn’t cover all possible situations, like a severely deformed baby – do you abort or not? or again, in the case of rape, i didn’t delve far. that’s another post, another day.

I love dumb people. Of course, that results in alot of love for thyself, considering how dumb I can be.

But I am not so dumb to think that the police and nurses are independant from the state. Any crime you commit against a person becomes just that much worse when they fall directly below the state – as upstanding citizens of society such as the cops. Yes, they sit above the average person in the state – they have superpowers of arrest, so why mess with them? Also, fines and jail terms are just too hefty now days, especially with all these new laws in W.A.

But that’s enough of that, let us discuss something complex and contentious.

So here I am, once again in Political Science, talking about abortion. It’s a complex and contentious issue.

We are looking at the argument of Michael Tooley. He says if we look at abortion, we must look at infanticide along side that. He also says, that in order to make rights claims, you must have interests and desires to make them. Thus, you only have a right to life if you have an interest and desire to continue to live. And you must also have a self concious ssense of existence and have a memory and future projection of desire to continue to exist. (But what about goldfish who allegedly only have a 3 second memory?)

Of course, lucky for Michael Tooley, he is Canadian. This is because his argument is void in W.A. where infanticide no longer exists as a crime. Post-natally depressed mothers who kill their baby are now charged with murder, which carries a far heftier sentence.

I’m not sure I like Tooley’s argument, he says if you have desires and interests, you have rights. But see, animals have desires and interests (to not be tortured, to be fed, etc) and yet, we don’t give them any rights! Persons have desires and interests, and persons can be more than just human beings, the can be animals too.

So here we now have Tooley’s conclusions, which are rather interesting, and are as copied down from my lecturer’s notes:

1. All abortions are justified (as long as done painlessly)
2. Infanticide is justified
3. OK to kill babies with severe deformities
4. Killing adults that are not persons can be justified
5. Some non human animals may be persons and hence have the right to life
6. Have to accept these conclusions if argue that abortion is ok because the foetus is not a person.

Ok, so this all makes sense, but it seems a little cruel, no? I guess though, he raises a mighty complex question: if you are willing to abort a baby, are you willing to accept that the rest of the above list is fair? If you abort a baby, will you be ok with me killing an adult who has no interests or desires?

I’m baffled. Absolutely baffled.

And I feel incredibly pretentious and deep and intelligent after this little ramble. Hopefully this lasts awhile.

I should depart, and attempt to make up my mind on where I stand on Tooley’s argument.

And also, try and decipher Judith Jarvis Thomson’s argument at the same time.

Farewell.