Decease… Death… Die…

Well, and actually such situation looks like a moral monster. But according to her arguments, the newborn baby like a fetus, is not a member of a moral community and therefore has no right for life.

But as distinct from fetus, a newborn is already separated from his mother and his existence cannot offer the threat for her and his existence can be provided by other people who have their own interests (we all know that there are many people who are eager to adopt a baby). And that’s why killing a newborn will be unacceptable from the moral point of view because it roughly breaks the interests of the other people (those who are willing to adopt a baby). But at the same time the realization of those people’s interests is not a problem for biological mother’s rights and interests.

Judith Jarvis Thomson. Some people state that the fetus from the moment of conception is a personality, person, and every personality has a right for life and therefore the abortion but be prohibited. The other people state that the fetus is not a personality and not personalities don’t have the right for life, and therefore the abortion is morally acceptable. And Judith Jarvis Thomson brings into a question the positions of both sides of that people. She demonstrates by her example that the question about abortion can be solved positively even if it was conceded that the fetus from the moment of conception is a personality. Simply from the acknowledgement of somebody as a personality, automatically there is no conclusion of the fact that he has a right for life in any situation.

Thomson’s example with famous violinist…Of course, it would be very generous to agree but at what moral basis is it possible to require from a person to limit his own rights and to be the means for existence for another person? I doubt whether somebody would agree with this. But this means that from the acknowledgement of the given man in a quality of personality there is no conclusion that he has a right for life in a given particular situation. And what if you have to live in such a way not for short period but for 10 years or for the rest of your life? Is your right to unplug not convincing? And if there is such situation where the doctor says: “I’m really sorry but you’ll have to stay in the bed with the violinist for the rest of your life. We, undoubtedly, respect your right to order by your own body but at the same time, the right for life is a higher value than the right for order by your own body. That’s why we’ll never make the unplugging operation.” And in such situation, the majority of people would say that the doctor must run the unplugging operation. It is impossible to act so.

Go to next page…