More handpicked essays just for you.
Thomson, “a defense of abortion” outlined
Thomson defense of abortion main argument
Thomson, “a defense of abortion” outlined
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Thomson, “a defense of abortion” outlined
Alexis Suker
Bioethics
March 25, 2015 I enjoyed reading the article “Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thomson. Judith starts her article off by talking about the most common argument where you believe that an unborn is considered a human being(person) from conception. That “before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person”. She goes on to say that this conclusion doesn’t follow in that she can say the same thing about an acorn developing. It doesn’t follow that acorns are oak trees, making this argument a “slippery slope”. By the tenth week legs, fingers, and internal organs have already have developed, but Judith agrees that a fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A clump of cells is no more a person than the acorn. Judith moves on to argue that okay, the fetus is a person form moment of conception. Every person has a right to life, so the
Her partial responsibility gives the unborn child a right to the use of her body, so if she were to abort it then she would be depriving it of what it does have a right to. Doing so would be unjust. For if the pregnancy was due to rape then it has no right to the use of the mother’s body, and aborting it would not be depriving it of what it needs to survive thus not unjust killing. There are many cases that are all different for different scenarios, and the details make a difference. Suppose the room is stuffy and you open a window to air it out, and a burglar climbs in. It would be pretty ridiculous to say “Now he can stay because I am partially responsible for his presence, having full knowledge that there is such thing as burglars.” Goes to say that the argument can establish that there are some cases which the unborn child has a right to the use of it’s mother’s body thus some cases which abortion is unjust
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
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
“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
In Dan Marquis’ article, “Why Abortion is Immoral”, he argues that aborting a fetus is like killing a human being already been born and it deprives them of their future. Marquis leaves out the possible exceptions of abortion that includes: a threat to the mom’s life, contraceptives, and pregnancy by rape. First, I will explain Marquis’ pro-life argument in detail about his statements of why abortion is morally wrong. Like in many societies, killing an innocent human being is considered morally wrong just like in the United States. Second, I will state my objection to Marquis’ argument through examining the difference between a human being already born future compared to a potential fetus’s future. Thus, Marquis’ argument for his pro-life
...main for that hour – that it would be indecent in her to refuse” (page 119). My problem with this scenario is that she leaves it unfinished. What happens to the child that is then born? If pregnancy only lasted an hour, it wouldn’t be that big of a deal. It’s the part after that (which is taking care of a child) that lasts the rest of your life and is most important. I also feel that Thompson makes assumptions, which make it easier for her to argue her points. In her first argument about the violinist, she says “I would imagine you would regard this as outrageous…” (Page 114). How does she know what people would “imagine?” It seems very arrogant of her to assume that people reading her article would automatically agree with her opinions. I think that the article focuses too much on why the Pro-Life ideas are wrong, instead of why Pro –Choice is right.
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
Judith Jarvis Thomson makes an interesting argument on the defense of abortion. She uses a libertarian framework believing in the doctrine of free will on a rights based account that a women and the fetus that she carries have equal rights. She makes clear, that “the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception.” In her specific argument she believes that every person has a right to life, and our obligation to one another as human beings is to not interfere with the rights of others and are not obligated to intervene past that. Her specific argument is convincing.
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).
Even though many argue a fetus is not yet a person, Marquis does not think it makes a difference at what stage a person is in life, that fetus will eventually be a person who will eventually live a life and to take that away before it even starts would be unethical.... ... middle of paper ... ... This idea, he argues, does not withstand the argument of suicide because it challenges his theory of having the desire to live.
...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.
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.
I feel that Thomson?s argument was easily refuted although it was very imaginative and clever. It doesn?t seem that her idea of abortion only being wrong in the case of voluntary pregnancy will hold water too long. In my personal opinion I feel that abortion is generally wrong. I think that if the woman became pregnant through consensual sex, even if she did not want to have a child, abortion is wrong regardless of the contraceptive precautions that were exercised. In the terribly unfortunate case of rape I feel it is more than understandable for the woman to want to abort the fetus. Seeing how the fetus had no control over the situation it seems that they should be given the chance at life. Although it is very unfortunate for the woman to have to be in such a situation I think it would be in the best interest for everyone to have the child. Maybe someday the unwanted child could make a contribution to all of mankind. The one situation that is very complicated to me is in the case of the mother?s life depending on the fetus being alive. I feel that every individual situation should carefully studied while considering all possible outcomes.
middle of paper ... ... 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. Although she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent.
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.
Yet, I have clearly shown that the fetus is a separate person with its own heart, lungs, brain, and all different body organs. The oppositions would say that it is the woman’s right to terminate her own pregnancies. Yet, in the eyes of the law two charges are filed when someone kills a woman and her fetus, so how is it her right to kill another human being? A woman doesn’t have four arms, four legs, two heads, four kidneys, two hearts, and two brains… so how is it only her body?