portant questions about abortion. The first is "what properties must
someone have in order to be considered a person, i.e., to have a serious
right to life?" Tooley answers that anything which completely lacks
consciousness, like ordinary machines, cannot have rights. If a being does
not desire something such as consciousness, it is impossible to deprive
that being of his right to it. In other words, Tooley argues that since a
fetus does not show outward desires to have life, it is morally permissible
to abort that fetus. There are three exceptions to this rule that need to
be clarified. First, if the being is in a temporary emotionally unbalanced
state, such as a deep depression, he should still be allowed rights to life.
Secondly, if the being is unconscious due to sleep or some sort of trauma,
he should not be deprived of his rights to life. Finally, if the person has
been brainwashed by a religious cult or any similar institution into
wanting death, he should still be given a right to life.
The second question addressed by Tooley is "at what point in the
development of a member of the species Homo Sapiens does the organism
possess the properties that make it a person?" The law in America currently
implies that the fetus possesses the properties that make it a person when
it reaches the third trimester or the sixth month of its germination inside
the uterus. Is this a reasonable assessment of when a fetus has a right to
life? Tooley says "No". An organism does not have a right to life unless
it possesses the concept of a self as a continuous being of mental states.
This definition of possessing a right to life can be applied to newborn
babies that do not yet have a concept of a self as a continuous being.
Therefore, it is morally acceptable to deprive them of their right to life,
for they don't show desire for life. According to Tooley, the fetus does
not have a r...