2. Someone other than a person gets a say in what that person does with their body.
So, I think this rule breaks down when you consider, say, teratogens. While I'm somewhat close to the "women should have a right to have an abortion on a whim" end of the spectrum (doesn't mean I approve of the choice, but I think they should have the right), I strongly disagree with "women should have a right to ingest teratogens while carrying a baby".
Generally, my theory is that humans are mainly valued above animals for the complexity of their thinkings, feelings, and connections to other humans*. I think it is fairly clear that for thinkings and feelings, an 8 month fetus is not superior to animals that we are willing to butcher for food. So, to the extent that an 8 month fetus should have rights under my philosophy, its rights derive from the attachment that others have to it. The mother is pretty clearly the most important person here... other family members have a lesser attachment, and society at large may also have weak attachments. So, for abortions, I weigh the "women should have control over their own body" against these secondary attachments, and find that it would be hard for me to see a case where it would be clear that the mother's rights to control her body should be over-ridden because someone else thinks she should be required to keep nurturing the fetus inside of her.**
However, if the woman is planning on carrying the baby to term, then we have to consider a future being with its own set of thinking, feeling, and societal attachments, and that being, in my thought system, should have some rights, and I think that it should have a right not to be born deformed which can, in some circumstances, be weighed against the woman's right to control her body. So I would argue that taking thalidomide for a sleeping problem (or other strongly teratogenic agents) should not be allowed for a pregnant woman.
*This can explain why smarter animals - dolphins and chimps - should have more rights than dumber animals, and why animals with more attachments to humans - eg, pets and charismatic megafauna - should have more rights than animals without those attachments...
**There is some room here to think that "a whim" shouldn't outweigh, say, the father's wishes: but, I don't see a practical way to test whether the woman's desire to abort is a "whim" or a "strongly felt desire", and so I would err on the side of a stronger right to abort.
(this philosophy can also be applied to cases like Terri Schiavo or assisted suicides... in the former, brain death means that the person's value rests in their attachments, in the latter, one is weighing the person's right to do what they want with their body against, again, the attachments to other humans)
no subject
So, I think this rule breaks down when you consider, say, teratogens. While I'm somewhat close to the "women should have a right to have an abortion on a whim" end of the spectrum (doesn't mean I approve of the choice, but I think they should have the right), I strongly disagree with "women should have a right to ingest teratogens while carrying a baby".
Generally, my theory is that humans are mainly valued above animals for the complexity of their thinkings, feelings, and connections to other humans*. I think it is fairly clear that for thinkings and feelings, an 8 month fetus is not superior to animals that we are willing to butcher for food. So, to the extent that an 8 month fetus should have rights under my philosophy, its rights derive from the attachment that others have to it. The mother is pretty clearly the most important person here... other family members have a lesser attachment, and society at large may also have weak attachments. So, for abortions, I weigh the "women should have control over their own body" against these secondary attachments, and find that it would be hard for me to see a case where it would be clear that the mother's rights to control her body should be over-ridden because someone else thinks she should be required to keep nurturing the fetus inside of her.**
However, if the woman is planning on carrying the baby to term, then we have to consider a future being with its own set of thinking, feeling, and societal attachments, and that being, in my thought system, should have some rights, and I think that it should have a right not to be born deformed which can, in some circumstances, be weighed against the woman's right to control her body. So I would argue that taking thalidomide for a sleeping problem (or other strongly teratogenic agents) should not be allowed for a pregnant woman.
*This can explain why smarter animals - dolphins and chimps - should have more rights than dumber animals, and why animals with more attachments to humans - eg, pets and charismatic megafauna - should have more rights than animals without those attachments...
**There is some room here to think that "a whim" shouldn't outweigh, say, the father's wishes: but, I don't see a practical way to test whether the woman's desire to abort is a "whim" or a "strongly felt desire", and so I would err on the side of a stronger right to abort.
(this philosophy can also be applied to cases like Terri Schiavo or assisted suicides... in the former, brain death means that the person's value rests in their attachments, in the latter, one is weighing the person's right to do what they want with their body against, again, the attachments to other humans)