Analysis Of Abortion And Infanticide By Michael Tooley

Michael Tooley, the author of ‘Abortion and Infanticide’, argues that an organism must possess certain properties to possess a right to life. He states that an organism possess a serious right to life only if it possess the concept of self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it itself is a continuing entity (p. 44). Furthermore, he argues that there are certain requirements to meet this claim. To say one only has a right to life if it possesses a concept of self as a continuing subject is a bold statement. If claiming a fetus does not have a right to life because they do not possess a concept of self, then what about an human who is suffering from a disease that makes them incapable of having a concept of self. Do they not have a right to life?

Tooley’s first requirement for his claim is what he calls the self-consciousness requirement. To ascribe a right to an individual is to assert something about the prima facie obligations of other individuals to act, or refrain from acting, in certain ways (p. 44). He states the obligations that are in question are conditional, which are dependent on the existence of desires from the individual to whom the right is ascribed. If an individual asks

Right to life suggests that the right in question concerns the continued existence of a biological organism (p. 46). The example given is a brain that is reprogrammed with memories, beliefs, personality traits, and attitudes that are different from those that were associated with the organism before it was reprogrammed. Even though the organism has not been killed, some may say the person’s right to life has been violated. Tooley uses this example to show that the expression right to life is misleading, because what one is concerned about is the right to the subject’s experiences and other mental states, not the continued existence of the biological