A Defense Of Abortion, By Judith Jarvis Thomson

Abortion is an exceedingly controversial political topic, and it has been hotly debated through the years. Because multiple parties - the mother and the fetus - stand to gain or lose dramatically from each abortion decision, there is much moral gray area; however, society could benefit from looking at the issue philosophically. After all, philosophers often debate moral responsibility. In her argument "A Defense of Abortion," Judith Jarvis Thomson concludes that abortion is morally acceptable in almost all cases. To reach this conclusion, Thomson utilizes analogies for various pregnancy cases and explains why abortion would be morally viable. Through the violinist analogy, Thomson explains why abortion in the case of rape is certainly an understandable

The violinist is terminally ill and his fans have determined that the only way to save his life is to hook him up to the reader. By surviving off of the working kidneys of the reader for nine months, the violinist can make a full recovery. In the scenario, though, fans did not ask the permission of the reader; instead, they went ahead and hooked the two together while the reader was asleep. Right away, the similarities between this scenario and a pregnancy by rape are extremely apparent. For instance, as a woman who is raped had no choice in the matter of becoming pregnant, so too did the reader not have a choice in being linked to the violinist. After nine months of being tied to the violinist, the reader is "free" and the violinist healthy, just as a woman who is raped carries the child for nine months before giving birth. In the case of the violinist, though, Thomson argues that there is no obligation for the reader to give up his or her body simply because the fanatics already hooked the two together against the will of the reader. If the reader truly does not want to give up his or her body for the violinist, there is no obligation to do so. On a similar wavelength, then, Thomson argues that a woman should not have to give up her body for nine months to foster the growth of an organism that she never consented to in the first place. Essentially, she argues that the

In these two cases, it is important to note that the person being depended upon had absolutely no say in whether or not they were initially giving their body up for the sake of the other. Once that is established, it is exceedingly easy to say that there is no duty to use your body to help another. Although many (such as utilitarians, who believe in the maximization of good or happiness for the greatest number of people) would argue that a moral obligation lies in doing whatever possible to ensure the survival of the fetus or the violinist, plenty of others (such as Thomson) can very validly argue that moral responsibility does not include such involved personal sacrifice. Overall, the basis for Thomson 's argument is certainly plausible, though the argument itself is not without its