3 ms·
The moral question in this case isn't "Should you be able to unplug the violinist?" but "Should the violinist unplug themselves?". As an adult who is profiting
by dane-pgp 4y ago
The moral question in this case isn't "Should you be able to unplug the violinist?" but "Should the violinist unplug themselves?".
As an adult who is profiting from a crime committed against you, they are morally obligated to return you to your original state that existed before the crime was committed (even though it would return them to their original state, which was illness and near-term death).
For a child in the womb, though, they do not have a pre-existing state (under the philosophical premise that conception is the starting point of a unique human), and most conceptions are not the result of crimes (although I can understand someone drawing a bright moral line between different pregnancies based on that factor).
- causi 4y agoIt also only applies to a fetus created as the result of rape. A fetus created by consensual sex is like if you walked into the hospital, sat down in the room, and plugged the needle into your arm yourself.
- slavak 4y agoThat is patently absurd. Consent to sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy, especially if contraceptives were used and failed. At the risk of stretching the metaphor to its breaking point, this is you choosing to go out and get drunk while aware that members of an unethical music lovers' organization are skulking about looking for victims to graft sick violinists onto. Sure, they no longer need to actively drug you because you willingly did that yourself, but that doesn't imply your consent to what happens next.
- causi 4y agoConsent to sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy It's as much consent to pregnancy as dropping a cinderblock on your foot is consent to a broken toe or eating ten cheeseburgers a day is consent to getting fat.
- slavak 4y agoNo, it's really, really not, and this line of reasoning is getting absurd. People around the world routinely engage in frequent sexual intercourse without becoming pregnant. If you show me even a fraction of that same number of people who have demonstrated an ability to consume ten cheeseburgers a day for a prolonged period without gaining weight, maybe you'd have a point. Otherwise, this is just a blatant false equivalence.
- causi 4y agoPeople around the world routinely engage in frequent sexual intercourse without becoming pregnant Yes, and people routinely take methamphetamine without having a heart attack and shoot themselves without dying. That doesn't obviate the fact that pregnancy is the direct result of coitus. Claiming you did not consent to the function for which a body part evolved when you used that body part is like saying you didn't consent to sweating when you went for a summer jog. Sure, you may certainly take measures to prevent an undesired outcome but the physical results of your choices can only be tragedy, not injustice.
- disambiguation 4y agoConsent to eating is consent to taking a dump. Social constructs don't apply to biology.
- colinmorelli 4y agoNotwithstanding the other debate in this thread about consent to sex versus consent to pregnancy, does your answer to the scenario above change even if you willingly plugged the needle into the arm yourself? From my perspective, even if we assume the person plugged the needle into the arm, it's absolutely not my place to mandate that you must now keep the needle attached until the violinist can live independently again. You may feel horrible about disconnecting that needle. We may even agree that it's a pretty awful thing to do to the violinist. In fact, we may even agree that you should be responsible for at least attempting to find alternative options for the violinist. But I certainly would never imagine creating a society in which we would prevent you from doing it. It is your body, and you should absolutely retain the right to revoke consent for the violinist to live off of it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]