Within the “Defense of Abortion,” Thompson insinuates an underlying principle, in which she highly values the principle of autonomy, as seen in her essay conversing the illegality of drug use. The implication of the principle of autonomy is an exercise of the belief that an adult is entitled to and has complete control over their body. Thompson’s argument begins with the willingness to take on the initial claim that nothing can be done to end a fetus’ life, insinuating that an abortion is impermissible even to save the mother. The response to this claim stated, “Doesn’t anyone have the right to defend themselves in the face of impending death?” “I should perhaps stop to say explicitly that I am not claiming that people have a right to do anything whatever to save their lives. I think, rather, that there are drastic limits to the right of self-defense.” (p. 213) Thompson defends her argument on the basis of self-defense claiming that a person has the right to protect their own life and, though it may be regrettable, if …show more content…
As Thompson acclaimed, “Opponents of abortion have been so concerned to make out the independence of the fetus in order to establish that it has a right to life, just as its mother does, that they have tended to overlook the possible support they might gain from making out that the fetus is dependent on the mother in order to establish that she has a special kind of responsibility for it.” (p. 216). Though this is a compelling, intuitive, and appealing argument, it conflates with causal and moral responsibility which differentiates between allowing oneself to be placed in a position for something to happen and taking personal liability and accountability for one’s
In conclusion, Thompson's criticisms of the Standard anti-abortion argument are false. Premise 1 stays true as life begins at conception because that is the point when the fetus starts to grow. Premise 2 stays alive because murder is both illegal and morally wrong. Why? because you are depriving them of their future and causing harm to the people who love the victim. And lastly, premise 4 remains true because there is a difference between not helping someone live and directly killing them, thereby proving the case of the unconscious violinist as not analogous. All in all, the standard anti-abortion argument remains a sound argument.
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.
Thomson appeals to the strongest case for abortion, rape, to define the rights of the fetus and the pregnant person. Thomson concludes that there are no cases where the person pregnant does not have the right to choose an abortion. Thomson considers the right to life of the pregnant person by presenting the case of a pregnant person dying as a result of 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.
Over the course 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 regard to her reproductive rights.
The purpose of this paper is to detail the contents of Judy Jarvis Thompson’s argument against the position that sexual intercourse implies a mothers consent for a fetus to use her body, from her paper “A Defense of Abortion,” and to evaluate the validity of her argument. On the topic of implied consent, Thompson attempts to support her position through the use of anecdotal parallels. Thompson acknowledges the argument that a fetus inherits the right to its mother’s body if the mother engaged in voluntary intercourse with the knowledge of the possibility of a resulting pregnancy. She also posits that the mother forfeits the right to abort the unborn child even as a method to save the mother’s life because of this tacit consent. On the other
Many arguments in the abortion debate assume that the morality of abortion depends upon the moral status of the foetus. While I regard the moral status of the foetus as important, it is not the central issue that determines the moral justifiability of abortion. The foetus may be awarded a level of moral status, nevertheless, such status does not result in the prescription of a set moral judgement. As with many morally significant issues, there are competing interests and a variety of possible outcomes that need to be considered when making a moral judgement on abortion. While we need to determine the moral status of the foetus in order to establish the type of entity we are dealing with, it does not, however, exist in a moral vacuum. There are other key issues requiring attention, such as the moral status and interests of the pregnant woman who may desire an abortion, and importantly, the likely consequences of aborting or not aborting a particular foetus. Furthermore, I assert that moral status should be awarded as a matter of degree, based upon the capacities of sentience and self-consciousness an entity possesses. In a bid to reach a coherent conclusion on the issue, the moral status of both foetus and woman, along with the likely results of aborting a particular foetus, must be considered together. Given the multiple facets requiring consideration, I assert that utilitarianism (Mill 1863) offers a coherent framework for weighing and comparing the inputs across a variety of situations, which can determine whether it is ever morally justifiable to have an abortion.
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).
In the article “It’s a Child, Not a Choice”, published in February of 1992, author Diane Dew writes to persuade readers about the issue of pro life. Dew writes to women, pro choice and pro life activists in an effort to inflict a guilty conscience in the minds of those who select the choice of abortion. Her intent in writing this piece is to try to convince readers of the negative aspects and irrationality of following through with an abortion. To Dew, the issues of pro choice and pro life should no longer be debatable civil rights issues. Dew supports her convictions with coherent reasoning.
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.
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”.
In Thomson’s argument in the case of pregnancy due to rape she begins by granting the premise that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, the fetus has a right to life, but she questions whether or not a person’s right to life outweighs the right a woman has to decide what happens to herself and her body. Thomson asks for us to imagine the following analogy:
One of the most controversial issues in society today is abortion, and as of now, it is morally acceptable because of Roe vs Wade. However, when a study conducted by Minnesota reveals that women who have had an abortion have 10 times the risk of committing suicide than women who have not had an abortion, it’s time to seriously think about whether or not abortion should be acknowledged as morally right. Considered by some to be a form of murder, anti-abortion laws should apply to all women in order to prevent any emotional mishaps of the abortion victim and to save the lives of the innocent human beings not yet born. Pro-Choice advocates believe that abortion should be legalized because they feel it is necessary to empower women with choice. They have strong opinions that women are not subordinate, so they ought to be allowed to make moral decisions and should not be forced to have a child, but why should the child have to suffer for the wrongdoings of his mother?
Abortion is an extremely controversial issue and one that is continually on the forefront of debates. Those who oppose the idea (Pro-lifers), thinks it is an act of woman playing “God” who live from who dies. Yet, whether an unborn baby constitutes a normal person is questionable; a pregnant woman, on the other hand, has the undeniable right to choose whether she wants to have a child or not. Therefore, the decision to have an abortion is the personal choice and responsibility of the woman, because prohibiting abortion impedes freedom of choice and endangers the physical and mental health of women.