Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the effects of abortion on society.
women's rights and abortion
Positive effect of abortion and the negative effect
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the effects of abortion on society.
Is a pregnant woman always responsible for the fetus that lives inside her? In “A Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson adopts the position that “the fetus is a person from the moment of conception” (212) for her argument. A person has the right to life, which leads some to believe that abortion can never be a morally permissible act. However, a woman, even in pregnancy, reserves a considerable amount of liberty over her body. Thomson uses the analogy of comparing sperm to seeds as a way to examine the ethics of abortion and the responsibility of a pregnant woman to the fetus inside of her. The seeds in Thomson’s analogy have the ability to grow into person-plants if they germinate in carpets or upholstery–a woman’s reproductive organs–in
As a woman cannot consent to the act of rape, she could not assume the responsibility of getting pregnant. Surely the woman cannot be responsible just because she has the ability to get pregnant. The fetus does not have an eminent right to the woman’s body at contraception even if it is a person. She has no moral ties to a fetus conceived from rape. She didn’t plan on having sexual intercourse that had the possibility to result in pregnancy. Thomson says that an unborn person only has a right to the mother’s body if her pregnancy resulted from a voluntary act (216). One can connect this to the person-seed analogy, although it is not directed said by Thomson, by saying that rape is akin to forcing open a window when the woman wants her house to stay quarantined from the possibility of a seed to float in. Thomson acknowledges the absurdity of the argument of a fetus’ implicit right to use its mother’s body by stating that it is not expected from a woman to getting a hysterectomy or having an army to protect from rape to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Thus, a fetus conceived out of unconsensual intercourse does not have the right to exist in its mother’s body. This strengthens her argument that not all unborn people have the right to live inside the mother’s
In her essay, “A Defense for Abortion,” Judy Jarvis Thomson primarily argues for the permissibility of abortion, due to rape, but it can be challenged by exposing flaws in her argument that relies heavily on analogy. However, objections to Thomson’s explanation fail to defeat her argument.
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
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.
This essay examines and critiques Judith Jarvis Thomson’s, A Defense of Abortion (1971). Thomson sets out to show that the foetus does not have a right to the mother’s body and that it would not be unjust to perform an abortion when the mother’s life is not threatened. For the sake of the argument, Thomson adopts the conservative view that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. The conservative argument asserts that every person has a right to life. The foetus has a right to life.
Thomson concludes that there are no cases where the person pregnant does not have the right to chose an abortion. Thomson considers the right to life of the pregnant person by presenting the case of a pregnant person dying as a result from their pregnancy. In this case, the right of the pregnant person to decide what happens to their body outweighs both the fetus and the pregnant person 's right to life. The right to life of the fetus is not the same as the pregnant person having to die, so as not to infringe on the right of the fetus. In the case of the violinist, their necessity for your body for life is not the same as their right over the use of your body. Thomson argues that having the right to life is not equal to having the right to use the body of another person. They argue that this is also the case, even if the the pregnant person knowingly participated in intercourse and knew of the possibility of pregnancy. In this case it would seem that abortion would not be permissible since the pregnancy was not by force. However, we are reverted back to the case of rape. If a fetus conceived voluntarily has the right not to be aborted due to how it was conceived, then the fetus conceived from rape should also have that same right. Instead of creating a distinction of cases where the fetus has a right to use the body of a pregnant person, Thomson instead makes a distinction of when abortion would be morally
Over the duration of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with consideration to her reproductive rights. The drawback, however, is that there is no agreement upon when life begins and at which point one crosses the line from unalienable rights to murder.
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).
...ther’s sovereignty over her body outweigh the right of an unborn child to live. The answers to these questions are very diverse as a result of the diversity of the American society. With the issue of abortion, one’s attitude toward it is going to be based on many things such as religious background and personal morals. There is no black and white answer to the abortion issue. Luckily we live in a country where we are able to decide for ourselves whether something is morally right or wrong. Thus, ultimately, the choice is ours. As with the many other ethical issues which we are faced with in our society, it is hard to come to a concrete answer until we are personally faced with that issue. All we can do is make an effort to know all of the aspects which are involved so that we may be able to make a sound decision if we were faced with this problem in our own lives.
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 her essay “Abortion, Intimacy, and the Duty to Gestate,” Margaret Olivia Little examines whether it should be permissible for the state to force the intimacy of gestation on a woman against her consent. Little concludes that “mandating gestation against a woman’s consent is itself a harm - a liberty harm” (p. 303). She reaches this conclusion after examining the deficiencies in the current methods used to examine and evaluate the issues of abortion. Their focus on the definition of a “person” and the point in time when the fetus becomes a distinct person entitled to the benefits and protections of the law fails to capture “the subtleties and ambivalences that suffuse the issue” (p. 295). Public debate on the right to life and the right to choose has largely ignored the nature of the relationship between the mother and the fetus through the gestational period and a woman’s right to either accept or decline participation in this relationship.
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.
...e open to all women at any point of pregnancy, and that the woman reserves the right as a fully conscious member of the moral community to choose to carry the child or not. She argues that fetuses are not persons or members of the moral community because they don’t fulfill the five qualities of personhood she has fashioned. Warren’s arguments are valid, mostly sound, and cover just about all aspects of the overall topic. However much she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent. Warren rejects emotional appeal in a very Vulcan like manner; devout to reason and logic and in doing so has created a well-written paper based solely on this rational mindset.
The article A Defense of Abortion written by Judith Thomson and the article Why Abortion is Immoral by Don Marquis deal with the arguments of whether abortion is moral, immoral, justified or not. The author Don Marquis wants to prove that abortion is immoral without taking into consideration extreme cases, while Thomson says that abortion is justified in some cases. The latter supports her arguments by saying that abortion is justified in cases such as rape and when the mother’s life, which is the most important here, is in danger. On the other hand, Marquis says that abortion can’t be justified, because abortion is killing a person who might have a future, without much reference to any other cases that might lead to abortion.
Are you giving it a label to convince me that killing the fetus is not wrong, or are you convincing yourself? This is a mostly ethical point of view on abortion. If a woman is pregnant, she should accept the responsibility of having the child and if she doesn’t want the child, to give it up for adoption. You say it is your right to have control over your body, but where was that control when the child was conceived? As for rape, well, I have a story to tell about the ability to love that child.
According to Judith Thomson in her book “A Defense of Abortion”, a human embryo is a person who has a right to life. But, just because the human fetus has the right to life does not mean that the mother will be forced to carry it (Thomson, 48). Naturally, abortion may be seen as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy before the fetal viability. Though people have understood this, the topic of abortion has remained a controversial issue in the world. Individuals are divided into “Pro-choice” and “Pro-life” debaters depending on their opinion on the morality of the action. "Pro-life," the non-consequentialist side, is the belief that abortion is wrong, generally because it equates to killing. "Pro-choice," the consequentialist view, however,