'A Defense of Abortion' by Judith Jarvis Thomson 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. In her article Thomson starts off by giving antiabortionists the benefit of the doubt that fetuses are human persons. She adds that all persons have the right to life and that it is wrong to kill any person. Also she states that someone?s right to life is stronger than another person?s autonomy and that the only conflict with a fetuses right to life is a mother?s right to autonomy. Thus the premises make abortion impermissible. Then Thomson precedes to attacks the premise that one?s right to autonomy can be more important to another?s right to life in certain situations. She uses quite an imaginative story to display her point of view. Basically there is a hypothetical situation in which a very famous violinist is dying. Apparently the only way for the violinist to survive is to be ?plugged? into a particular woman, in which he could use her kidneys to continue living. The catch is that the Society of Music Lovers kidnapped this woman in the middle of the night in order to obtain the use of her kidneys. She then woke up and found herself connected to an unconscious violinist. This obviously very closely resembles an unwanted pregnancy. It is assumed that the woman unplugging herself is permissible even though it would kill the violinist. Leading to her point of person?s right to life is not always stronger than another person?s right to have control over their own body. She then reconstructs the initial argument to state that it is morally impermissible to abort a fetus if it has the right to life and has the right to the mother?s body. The fetus has the right to life but only has the right to a ... ... middle of paper ... ...ould assure the survival of twin A. 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.
In the article, “Killing and Letting Die” by Philippa Foot she argues that Thomson’s argument is invalid. Thomson argues that abortion is sometimes justified because no one has the right to another person’s body and therefore the mother can detach herself from the baby. To highlight on this analogy she presents an example with a violinist. The violinist is in critical condition and in order to be saved he must be attached to a random person. That person is then obligated to be attached to the violinist for if they detach the violinist will surely die. It is true that in both situation there is someone’s life at stake. On violinist case the violinist is simply let die while the abortion case the fetus is killed by the mother. Therefore, I will
In other words, Thomson tries to make the connection that there are three other morally relevant factors involved in abortion in certain cases: the fetus depends on the mother’s body for survival, the mother has not consented to the use of her body and pregnancies are demanding on the body and limit what mothers can do. Hence, the violinist has a kidney condition, which he can only survive if he is attached to our body, we are kidnapped and attached to the violinist without consent and we have to lie in bed for nine months. Thus Thomson's reasoning is it that a person may now permissibly unplug them self from the violinist even though this will cause his death. The right to life, Thomson says, does not demand the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of the use of your body to which he has no ri...
Furthermore, Lee and George then dispute another argument, which they call “the evaluative version.” This arguments contends that a fetus becomes valuable and bearers of rights during a later time. Lee and George dispute various scenarios in this version. For example, Judith Thomson supported abortion by comparing the right to life with the right to vote. Lee and George attacks Thomson objection by stating
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.
In her essay, “A Defense of Abortion”, Judith Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible in most cases even when the fetus is considered a person. She does this by claiming that the right to bodily autonomy supersedes the right to life in almost every case and that the intention of the mother is important in defining when an abortion is permissible. Through multiple thought experiments she shows that the Western perspective often places more importance on the right to autonomy than the right to life even though it is claimed otherwise, and that if a mother does not intend to become pregnant she is not morally obligated to carry the fetus to term in most cases. I will examine these thought experiments and their implications in Thomson’s argument, present a rebuttal and speculate on her response.
The accepted premise for Thomson’s arguments is that a fetus is a person, and even without accepting the premise, there are still valid reasons to abortions being morally permissible. In the violinist case, a person who has perfectly functioning kidneys is kidnapped and hooked up to a machine to save a violinist who is dying
Abortions occur for all types of reasons, whether it is because the pregnancy was unplanned, rape-induced, or that it holds a life threatening capacity for the woman herself. Pro-lifers believe once one is conceived, he or she are entitled to a right to live. It does not matter whether or not the pro-lifers are able to prove that a fetus consists of personhood. The life of a potential person should not be able to override the right to one’s body. Judith Thomson presents a though experiment where personhood is granted to a fetus, but how that mere fact still fails to override the woman’s right to her body.
My view goes more with Thomson because she believes that abortion is morally permissible but not always. Specifically, she claims that a person should not be killed unjustly. She is able to see the opposing sides of abortion, and claims that it is wrong for the fetus to try to use another person 's body in order to live. Thomson believes that the fetus has a right to life but the mother has little to no obligation to carry on with her pregnancy. I feel this is a just action because with certain cases of abortion such as unplanned, rape, etc. I believe the fetus does have a right to life, but if the mother does not want to carry out her pregnancy then she could at least leave it for adoption or find someone who is willing to care for her child. She also adds to her claim that it is wrong for a mother to have an abortion in the last trimester of her pregnancy due to, “a vacation.” I whole heartedly agree with Thomson because again, if the pregnancy is causing financial instability, doubts on caring for the child due to lack of education, or detrimental problems to her physical and mental health, the mother should be allowed to have an abortion. Then Thomson uses the seed/person case to support her argument where if you left your window open and a seed was to fly in and take root on your carpet and the seed grows into a person/plant, have you granted permission for that person/plant the right to use your room? This is where I start to find Thomson 's example a bit unrealistic. How in the world does a seed/person compare to a fetus? It 's hard for people to understand or make a connection with the example she gives, and I feel her argument would be more effective if she used a more realistic example. Other than that, my views mostly coincide with Thomson’s view on abortion, despite the examples she uses to explain her
Thomson sets out to show that the foetus does not have a right to the mother’s body and that it would be not unjust to perform an abortion when the mother’s life is not threatened.
The overall thesis that Thomson presents in “A Defence of Abortion”, is that abortion is permissible no matter the personhood status of the fetus. Their argument addresses various aspects of the issue; the rights of the fetus, the person pregant with the fetus, how those rights interact with each other, third parties and moral obligation. They claim that the rights of a fetus are not any more important than the rights of the person pregnant. However, they also address cases where there would be a sense of moral obligation not to have an abortion. Their discussion about third party participation can be used for other types of necessary third party participation.
Thomson presents solid arguments in her violinist scenario and in the killing verses letting die debate and her opinions are easily backed. While I disagree with her on the moral responsibilities we have to justify the circumstances our actions create I believe I have presented a clear case as to why. Throughout her arguments she assumed that the fetus had an equal right to life from the moment of conception. I believe that she showed in some situations abortion is still permissible even when this statement is taken as fact.
...e right to use the mother’s body has not been extended to the fetus, abortion does not violate the fetuses right to life. Abortion is permissible in many cases, but this does not mean that we have the right to secure the death of the fetus. I agree with Thomson’s view that the death of a fetus is a necessary side-effect of abortion, but is not the goal. Were it possible to remove a fetus without killing it, then it must not be killed. The potential harm or life depreciation of the mother outweighs the fetuses’ potential right to life, whether it may have a future or not. Killing in self-defense is permissible and the possible death or harm that comes from having a baby is enough right for a mother to have an abortion. I support Thomson’s view on abortion and believe that the mother should have a choice whether to abort her baby or not at an early stage of pregnancy.
Thomson wishes to avoid getting complicated in a debate about the moral status of fetuses. The argument she wants to establish is that even if fetuses have a right to life this does not automatically outweigh a woman’s right to control over her body. So, with the famous violinist she indicates a human being which has a right to life. If we think fatal kidney disorders contradict that right. In Thomson view point there are three other morally significant factors involved in abortion in certain cases. The fetus depends on the mother’s body for complete survival, the mother has not agreed to the use of her body and pregnancies
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
Thompson, a pioneer on the moderate side, suggests that abortion is in fact sometimes morally permissible. Her main goal was to not only argue for abortions permissibility, but to challenge some of the common arguments presented for the impermissibility of abortion. Explaining her goals, she argues that a fetus has a right to life. But the question is what does it mean to have the right to life? Well, in some cases, a right solely means entitlement and in other cases, it means a certain kind of claim that one has against another. Thomson presents that the right to life does not mean it is the right to have the bare minimum needed for survival. Presenting the famous violinist case, she explains the storyline of a person who wakes up and is attached to a famous violinist. If the individual decides to detach him or herself, the violinist dies unless they stay attached for several months to save him. This case symbolizes the correlation between abortion and rape. Meaning, having an abortion, like detaching from the violinist, is morally permissible in cases where the pregnancy is not wanted. Her argument, using the case, claims that abortion in the case of rape is in fact morally permissible. With is then clear that Thomson rejects that the fetus’s right to life outweighing the mothers right to decide what she wants. In other cases, abortion is an unjust killing. However, she does note her argument may not be satisfactory to all proponents of the moral permissibility of