I agree that it's basically a philosophical question, and it feels like an irreducible one (ie once you've decided it your position is set). However I know of at least one argument that does *not* derive the ultimate political stance from the question of life; to wit, the famous violinist argument.
(In case this isn't familiar: let us say you wake up one morning and discover that a famous violinist suffering from some strange disease has been hooked up to you and is now dependent on your biological processes for life. The violinist is fine as long as s/he gets use of your body and will die if disconnected. Do you have a moral obligation to allow the violinist to use your organs?
In this hypothetical the violinist is clearly alive by practically everyone's intuitive concepts of life, so it completely sidesteps the whole abortion = murder argument. The question becomes one of bodily integrity, self-ownership. Now I personally am quite rabid on the subject of self-ownership and my moral intuition is that, while it might be quite nice of me to let the violinist go on, it's not my obligation; they are, after all, my organs we're talking about, and no one else has a right to use them.
In my present situation I've made a voluntary choice to surrender full use of my organs for the time being and I'm quite merry about that indeed -- but one might also make a voluntary choice to support the violinist without being obligated to do so.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-07-20 08:37 am (UTC)(In case this isn't familiar: let us say you wake up one morning and discover that a famous violinist suffering from some strange disease has been hooked up to you and is now dependent on your biological processes for life. The violinist is fine as long as s/he gets use of your body and will die if disconnected. Do you have a moral obligation to allow the violinist to use your organs?
In this hypothetical the violinist is clearly alive by practically everyone's intuitive concepts of life, so it completely sidesteps the whole abortion = murder argument. The question becomes one of bodily integrity, self-ownership. Now I personally am quite rabid on the subject of self-ownership and my moral intuition is that, while it might be quite nice of me to let the violinist go on, it's not my obligation; they are, after all, my organs we're talking about, and no one else has a right to use them.
In my present situation I've made a voluntary choice to surrender full use of my organs for the time being and I'm quite merry about that indeed -- but one might also make a voluntary choice to support the violinist without being obligated to do so.)