Hallucinogens or psychedelics are mind-altering drugs, which affect the mind’s perceptions, causing bizarre, unpredictable behavior, and severe, sensory disturbances that may place users at risk of serious injuries or death. Hallucinogens powerfully affect the brain, distorting the way our five senses work and changes our impressions of time and space. People who use these drugs a lot may have a hard time concentrating, communicating, or telling the difference between reality and illusion. Hallucinogens cause people to experience - you guessed it - hallucinations, imagined experiences that seem real. The word "hallucinate" comes from Latin words meaning, "to wander in the mind."
Your brain controls all of your perceptions; the way you see, hear, smell, taste, and feel. Chemical messengers transmit information from nerve cell to nerve cell in the body and the brain. Your nerve cells are called neurons, and their chemical messengers are called neurotransmitters. Chemicals like hallucinogens can disrupt this communication system, and the results are changes in the way you sense the world around you. There's still a lot that scientists don't know about the effects of Hallucinogens on the brain though.
Some hallucinogens occur naturally in trees, vines, seeds, fungi and leaves. Others are made in laboratories by mixing different chemical substances. LSD or acid is one of the most common, well-known hallucinogens. Psilocin or Psilocybin mushrooms, Mescaline or Peyote, MDMA, Bufotenine, Morning Glory seeds, Jimson weed, PCP and DMT are less common psychedelics with effects similar to LSD. PCP and Ketamine are drugs with hallucinogenic properties. Some drugs, such as cannabis, can cause hallucinogen-like effects when used in high doses or in certain ways. Using hallucinogens is often called tripping. In its pure form LSD is a white, odorless powder. This pure form is very strong, so LSD is usually mixed with other things to make the dose large enough to take. LSD comes in the form as liquids, tablets, capsules or squares of gelatin or blotting paper. LSD use can have many effects. These may include sleeplessness, trembling, and raised heart rate, and blood pressure. LSD users may feel several emotions at once (including extreme terror), and their senses may seem to get crossed, giving the feeling of hearing colors and seeing sounds. Even a tiny speck of LSD can trigger these effects. Many LSD users have flashbacks; sudden repetitions of their LSD experiences, days or months after they stop using the drug.
A psychedelic drug is one that alters the brains perception and cognition. Drugs of this sort can cause visual hallucinations. People have said it feels as though everything is alive, breathing, dancing. Of course, like any drug, there is the possibility of having a “bad trip.” This is where things seemingly go wrong. The person tripping feels trapped, frightened, and extremely uncomfortable. The
Thomson’s argument is presented in three components. The first section deals with the now famous violinist thought experiment. This experiment presents a situation in which you wake up one morning and discover you have been kidnapped and hooked up to an ailing violinist so that his body would have the use of your kidneys for the next nine months. The intuitive and instinctive reaction to this situation is that you have no moral duty to remain hooked up to the violinist, and more, that he (or the people who kidnapped you) does not have the right to demand the use of your body for this period. From a deontological point of view, it can be seen that in a conflict between the right of life of the fetus and the right to bodily integrity of the mother, the mother’s rights will trump those of the fetus. Thomson distills this by saying “the right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly”.
Furthermore, Lee and George then dispute another argument, which they call “the evaluative version.” This arguments contends that a fetus becomes valuable and bearers of rights during a later time. Lee and George dispute various scenarios in this version. For example, Judith Thomson supported abortion by comparing the right to life with the right to vote. Lee and George attacks Thomson objection by stating
Judith Jarvis Thomson, a 20th century philosopher, offers her argument defending abortion in her paper, “A Defense of Abortion”. She states initially that the fetus has a right to life, although contrary to her argument, she uses it as a premise to develop her thoughts. In short, Thomson says that the fetus’s right to life does not outweigh the woman’s right to control her body. She forces readers to participate in a thought experiment as she gives an odd example about a violinist suffering from kidney failure. The violist is facing death and in order to prevent it, he needs your help. Because you are the only one with his blood type, you are the only hope for him. You have been kidnapped by the Society of Music lovers and, without your consent, hooked up to him and you are filtering his blood and keeping him alive. In order to save his life, you must remain connected to him and support him for nine whole months. Thomson then asks if it is morally wrong to disagree to remain connected to the violinist. It is quite noble to agree to save the man’s life but should his right to life automatically force you to sacrifice nine months of yours?
In this essay, I will hold that the strongest argument in defence of abortion was provided by Judith Jarvis Thompson. She argued that abortion is still morally permissible, regardless if one accepts the premise that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. In what follows, I agree that abortion is permissible in the ‘extreme case’ whereby the woman’s life is threatened by the foetus. Furthermore, I agree that abortion is permissible to prevent future pain and suffering to the child. However, I do not agree that the ‘violinist’ analogy is reliable when attempting to defend abortion involving involuntary conception cases such as rape, whereby the foetus does not threaten the woman’s health. To achieve this, I will highlight the distinction
...r (directly killing the baby in the womb or slitting the throat of the violinist). I believe the difference is very clear and therefore refutes Thompson's case of the unconscious violinist. This means that premise 4 still stands true.
In her essay, “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thompson outlines the most common arguments that people defend, and explains her views regarding each of these. She shares numerous examples and situations that she believes will support her views. One of her most prominent arguments is that of whether or not a fetus has moral standing as a “person.” She highlights the so called “battle” between an innocent life, the fetus, and the bodily rights of the mother. Within this argument, Judith outlines for us several situations which can provide people with a different outlook regarding abortion. Throughout Judith’s essay, she does not truly give a clear stance, but rather allows her readers to choose for themselves.
Thomson’s main idea is to show why Pro-Life Activists are wrong in their beliefs. She also wants to show that even if the fetus inside a women’s body had the right to life (as argued by Pro – Lifers), this right does not entail the fetus to have whatever it needs to survive – including usage of the woman’s body to stay alive.
In the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous 'violinist' argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's 'violinist' argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not make abortion permissible.
One must look beyond the stereotypes that psychedelics have earned in the twentieth century, and also modern science, that presupposes that any thing that cannot be explained within its own contexts either does not exist or is but a fanciful idea. However, the realm of psychedelics is uncharted area, and when dealing with such experimental substances, such as these psychedelic agents, one must proceed with caution, as was mentioned earlier the agents are powerful tools and can be used with skill or reckless abandon, and therefore can yield positive responses or deadly consequences. If used with care psychedelics will allow many psychologists and patients to embark on a perhaps endless journey of self-discovery.
The overall thesis that Thomson presents in “A Defence of Abortion”, is that abortion is permissible no matter the personhood status of the fetus. Their argument addresses various aspects of the issue; the rights of the fetus, the person pregant with the fetus, how those rights interact with each other, third parties and moral obligation. They claim that the rights of a fetus are not any more important than the rights of the person pregnant. However, they also address cases where there would be a sense of moral obligation not to have an abortion. Their discussion about third party participation can be used for other types of necessary third party participation.
A very minute does can significantly alter ones perception to the point of hallucination. Hallucination is when a person hears, or sees thing that don’t really exist. LSD is the most potent hallucinate. Approximately 100 times stronger than psilocybin, and 4000 times stronger than mescaline.
The Society of Music Lovers, an organization dedicated to aid the dying artist, searched through all available medical records and realized that only you have the correct blood type for an effective transfusion, which will certainly cure the violinist. The committed organization has thus kidnapped you and attached his circulatory system to yours through various technological means in order to extract poisons from his blood. If you were to disconnect, or unplug yourself from the violinist, he would immediately die, but in nine months he will have recovered and could be safely detached. Thomson concludes that a person’s right to life does not trump the right to use another person’s body.
In the Judith Jarvis Thomson’s paper, “A Defense of Abortion”, the author argues that even though the fetus has a right to life, there are morally permissible reasons to have an abortion. Of course there are impermissible reasons to have an abortion, but she points out her reasoning why an abortion would be morally permissible. She believes that a woman should have control of her body and what is inside of her body. A person and a fetus’ right to life have a strong role in whether an abortion would be okay. Thomson continuously uses the story of a violinist to get the reader to understand her point of view.
Alternatively, one might think that having the right to life means that one has the right not to be killed. Again, though, Thomson thinks that the violinist case shows this to be false; surely one can unplug oneself from the violinist, even though doing so kills him. Pathos were included when she provided the example of the violinist. If one attempts to alter the definition by suggesting instead that having the right to life means having the right not to be killed unjustly, then one has done little to advance the debate on abortion. She states that the third party don’t have the right to have the choice of killing the person. She went with the logos and pathos way when she was trying to explain what was going to happen. It shows how Thompson agrees with how the choice of life is not up to the third party or anybody else. With pathos and logos, Thomson further argues that even if women are partially being usually responsible for the presence of the fetus, because it is a voluntarily by engaging in intercourse with the full knowledge that pregnancy might result, it does not thereby follow that they bear a special moral responsibility toward