People Seed Case Study

464 Words2 Pages
The people seeds case: You desire to open a window in your house knowing that there are these seeds similar to pollen that could enter your house, take root in your living room and use your house for the duration of the growing period. Understanding the consequences you go out and buy a metal screen, the very best protection, in order to best prevent a people seed from entering your house. After opening the window and installing the screen a people seed still manages to enter and take root.

People seeds argument:
If a fetus has the right to the use of your body just because you willingly engaged in an activity knowing that it could result in a pregnancy, then the people seed has the right to the use of your house just because you willingly
…show more content…
Stating that knowing the possible repercussions of opening the window is sufficient enough in making the individual responsible for the people seed, and so, giving the people seed the right to your home. In other words, opening the window was consent enough to giving the people seed that right. I don’t believe this to be sufficient in undermining the argument. The case of Bill and Ted does well in distinguishing two terms of consent and concludes that an individual must tacitly agree to the consequences in order to have consent for the action. The most relatable case in disagreeing with any objection to the second premise is the hunter case. In the hunter case, Boonin thinks there are two ways an individual can be responsible for an action. The first being that the individual would continue to exist but, because of your action is now in need of your assistance, the other being that the individual would not have existed in the first place and now needs your assistance. In terms of being analogous to the people seed argument, the individual doesn’t make the people seed worse off than the people seed otherwise would have been had the individual not occurred. Therefore the individual is not morally responsible for the people seed and thus the people seed has no moral right to the
Open Document