Introduction
This essay will examine an often discussed pro-choice analogy. It will consider to what extent the abortion issue is still controversial if the terms of this analogy are accepted as true. This essay will first discuss the premises of the analogy in question. Then it will consider counter-arguments to the analogy. The objective of this paper is to make a determination on whether the controversial nature of the issue of abortion still pertains in light of the acorn analogy. It will be the argument of this paper that this controversy is not subdued by the acorn-fetus comparison.
Acorn Analogy and Related Issues
The acorn analogy means that oak trees are grown from acorns as human beings are grown from fetuses. Thus every acorn is a potential oak tree as every fetus is a potential human being. However, the fetus is not a human being from the point of conception any more than the acorn is an oak tree. Therefore, terminating the existence of one or the other is not tantamount to murdering a full developed living being. This is the argument that Thomson (47-48) presents in her oft-cited work on the permissibility of abortion.
The argument that an acorn is not an oak tree delineates where the determination should be made concerning whether a person exists. Indeed, one of the main controversies in the debate over abortion rights, hinges on the question of whether a person exists at the point of conception, during its development in the womb, or after birth. Thomson (47-48) allows that the fetus clearly develops into a human being prior to birth. She points out that, by the tenth week of pregnancy, the fetus has quickly evolved into a living being with discernible human physical characteristics. That is to...
... middle of paper ...
... for the outcome. Pro-life advocates argue that the pregnancy must be carried to term regardless. This is based on pro-life notions of natural duty and obligation to take care of one's relatives (Hershenov 129-130). Thus part of the pro-life argument appears to involve regulating human sexual behavior. With these counter-arguments in mind, it is likely that the acorn analogy does not make the abortion issue any less controversial.
Works Cited
Hershenov, D. B. Abortions and distortions: An analysis of morally irrelevant factors in Thomson’s violinist thought experiment. Social Theory and Practice, 27.1 (2008): 129-148.
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1.1 (Fall 1971): 47-66.
Pacholczyk, Tad. "Making Sense Out of Bioethics." Ncbcenter.org. N.d. Web. http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=295. December 3, 2013.
Thomson provides the example of being hooked up for nine months to provide dialysis to an ailing violinist to expose how a fetus’s right to life does not supersede a mother’s right to make medical decisions about her body (48-49). I find that this thought experiment especially helpful in understanding how even though a fetus does have a right to life, because the continuation of their life hinges on the consent of their mother to use her body, it falls to the mother to choose whether or not to allow the fetus to develop to term.
Milbauer, Barbara. The Law Giveth: Legal Aspects of the Abortion Controversy. Atheneum, New York: 1983.
“I argue that it is personhood, and not genetic humanity, which is the fundamental basis for membership in the moral community” (Warren 166). Warren’s primary argument for abortion’s permissibility is structured around her stance that fetuses are not persons. This argument relies heavily upon her six criteria for personhood: A being’s sentience, emotionality, reason, capacity for communication, self-awareness, and having moral agencies (Warren 171-172). While this list seems sound in considering an average, healthy adult’s personhood, it neither accounts for nor addresses the personhood of infants, mentally ill individuals, or the developmentally challenged. Sentience is one’s ability to consciously feel and perceive things around them. While it is true that all animals and humans born can feel and perceive things within their environment, consider a coma patient, an individual suspended in unconsciousness and unable to move their own body for indeterminate amounts of time. While controversial, this person, whom could be in the middle of an average life, does not suddenly become less of a person
The pro-life stance on abortion is often associated with and defended by traditional Christian beliefs , ; however, this paper will argue that it can and should be defended with secular arguments that appeal to reason and our shared human condition. This paper will try and counter the notion that the argument is simply another battlefield where religion and secular thought meet. Rather, it is an important issue that carries with it heavy implications not only for the religious but also for the secular. The major arguments discussed include the emotional and physical toll on the mother, the societal toll of having abortion legalized, and the rights attributed to every human being; first, however, the stance taken in this paper will be further defined and clarified.
In Judith Jarvis Thompson’s article “A Defense of Abortion” she explores the different arguments against abortion presented by Pro –Life activists, and then attempts to refute these notions using different analogies or made up “for instances” to help argue her point that women do have the right to get an abortion. She explains why abortion is morally permissible using different circumstances of becoming pregnant, such as rape or unplanned pregnancy.
The standard argument against abortion claims that the fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life. Thomson shows why this standard argument against abortion is a somewhat inadequate account of the morality of abortion.
Warren, M. A. (1973) 'On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion', Monist, vol. 57, no. 1.
Mary Anne Warren’s “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” describes her justification that abortion is not a fundamentally wrong action for a mother to undertake. By forming a distinction between being genetically human and being a fully developed “person” and member of the “moral community” that encompasses humanity, Warren argues that it must be proven that fetuses are human beings in the morally relevant sense in order for their termination to be considered morally wrong. Warren’s rationale of defining moral personhood as showcasing a combination of five qualities such as “consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity of communication, and self-awareness” forms the basis of her argument that a fetus displays none of these elements that would justify its classification as a person and member of the morally relevant community (Timmons 386).
Abortion is an important and rather popular topic in the philosophical world. On one side of the argument, pro choice, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is permissible because the pregnancy might not have been voluntary or the mother’s life is at risk if she continues on with the pregnancy. On the opposing side of the argument, Don Marquis argues that abortion is wrong because it takes away all the potential things a fetus could value in their future life. In this paper, I will argue against Don Marquis view of abortion. I will begin by explaining that Marquis does not take into consideration the effect the pregnancy may have on the mother, and I will talk about how Thomson does take the mother into consideration. Next, I will criticize
Hinman, Lawrence. “Abortion: A Guide to the Ethical Issues.” May 13, 2010. University of San
The permissibility of abortion has been a crucial topic for debates for many years. People have yet to agree upon a stance on whether abortion is morally just. This country is divided into two groups, believers in a woman’s choice to have an abortion and those who stand for the fetus’s right to live. More commonly these stances are labeled as pro-choice and pro-life. The traditional argument for each side is based upon whether a fetus has a right to life. Complications occur because the qualifications of what gives something a right to life is not agreed upon. The pro-choice argument asserts that only people, not fetuses, have a right to life. The pro-life argument claims that fetuses are human beings and therefore they have a right to life. Philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, rejects this traditional reasoning because the right of the mother is not brought into consideration. Thomson prepares two theses to explain her reasoning for being pro-choice; “A right to life does not entail the right to use your body to stay alive” and “In the majority of cases it is not morally required that you carry a fetus to term.”
Thomson starts off her paper by explaining the general premises that a fetus is a person at conception and all persons have the right to life. One of the main premises that Thomson focuses on is the idea that a fetus’ right to life is greater than the mother’s use of her body. Although she believes these premises are arguable, she allows the premises to further her explanation of why abortion could be
In Thomson’s article, “A Defense of Abortion,” Thomson argues that abortion is not impermis-sible because she agrees with the fact that fetus has already become a human person well before birth, from the moment of conception (Thomson, 268 & 269). Besides that, she also claims that every person has a right to live, does so a fetus, because a fetus is a person who has a right to live.
Warren, Mary Anne , and Mappes and D. DeGrazia. "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion." Biomedical Ethics 4th (1996): 434-440. Print.
In A Defense of Abortion (Cahn and Markie), Judith Thomson presents an argument that abortion can be morally permissible even if the fetus is considered to be a person. Her primary reason for presenting an argument of this nature is that the abortion argument at the time had effectively come to a standstill. The typical anti-abortion argument was based on the idea that a fetus is a person and since killing a person is wrong, abortion is wrong. The pro-abortion adopts the opposite view: namely, that a fetus is not a person and is thus not entitled to the rights of people and so killing it couldn’t possibly be wrong.