Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Theoretical perspectives on abortion
Judith Jarvis Thompson’s views on abortion
Judith Jarvis Thompson’s views on abortion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Theoretical perspectives on abortion
Many are inclined to believe that the fetus has become a human being even right before birth and being brought into the world. A controversial topic around that surrounds the world, is the act of abortion permissible? Philosophers have seen this idea and tried to understand when in face is abortion permissible. Philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thompson, in her piece, “A Defense Against Abortion” explores the premise is abortion permissible in all cases. Throughout Thompson’s piece she draws multiple analogies to make her argument be seen through a different perspective. Thompson makes the claim that abortion is permissible even when in fact when a woman intentionally engages in sex and knowing what she is doing can have a high risk of pregnancy. …show more content…
She claims that, opponents against abortion have been concerned to justify the independence of a fetus, to ensure that it has a right to life, just as a mother would. Making the fetus a human being (pg#). To fight off the argument she writes that what if mother’s body resulted pregnant from involuntary acts. Leading to the question being is the abortion permissible in the situation of an involuntary act? Many will claim that the mother was in a situation that entails high risks and Thompson later points out what if it was a voluntary act, is abortion permissible now? She claims that this argument an unborn person has a right to life if the mother’s act resulted from a voluntary act. While knowing the risks of that there could be a possibility of getting pregnant and leading to it being unjust to abort the baby. This is where Judith Thompson draws her analogy to suggest that it can be morally permissible to abort in situations when the woman knows the risk that can entail from sexual activities. Thompson illustrates, the situation the room has begun to get stuffy leading to the person to open the window to allow fresh air to come through the house. While now leaving, the window open there is a risk of a burglar climbs in. Leading to the fact that it would not make sense to allow the burglar to stay in and take what he needs to take. Hence that if a burglar climbs into the house we all that burglars like to burglar. Therefore, the owner of the house needs to protect the house from being burglarized. She claims we know the risks of leaving the window open there are high risks of it being burglarized. Furthermore, Thompson begins to see the argument differently in comparison to abortion, causing her to change the scenario and say that the burglar is now her friend. Now in this situation what is to happen? Thompson believes that this is the same idea when
In this essay I will be defending Judith Jarvis Thomson’s argument on `` A defence against Abortion``. In her argument she talks about how based on the situation a woman should be able to make a decision on her own whether she would want to keep the baby, or have an abortion, Thomson then stats that abortion should be legal, but only in some cases, she then stats her analogy. (Thomson, 1971, Page 48) “imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the society of music lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist`s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you ``look, we`re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you-we would never have permitted it if we had known. But stil...
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 uses an analogy to get her point of why a woman has the moral right to an abortion. One morning you wake up and find out you are connected to an unconscious famous violinist. The famous violinist has a fatal kidney disease and the only way he is going to survive is if he “plugged” into someone else’s circulatory system. The Society of Music Lovers found out that you are the only one with the right blood type and kidnapped you, resulting in the situation you are in. When the violinist is plugged into you, your kidneys are extracting the poison from his blood. The doctor now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he ...
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.
Thompson’s assessment reveals that she believes that the argument for implied consent is flawed and does substantiate the claim that all abortion is unjust killing. Though Thompson addressed many of the main pieces of the argument for implied consent, she presented situations that do not accurately reflect reality. Both of her scenarios involved either people or “people-seeds” that entered a person’s home freely and were not personally created by the homeowner and another
The Inviolability of human life is something that essentially all people hold to be true, whereas in the case of abortion the waters become muddied and discussion turns from peaceful conference too hateful rhetoric. Judith Thomson, in her paper A Defense of Abortion, allows for some leeway in order for a form of discussion to commence. Breaking down her opposition’s main talking points and allowing for one of the highly contingent positions to be true is the style in which she attempts to dismantle their arguments. She does this so that even with the allowance that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception that fact does not give her oppositions argument any more validity. I believe Miss Thomson manufactures a compelling but ultimately flawed case and therefore her argument should not be held as valid.
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).
Why Abortion is Immoral by Don Marquis is an essay that claims that abortion is morally wrong, and uses one argument in particular to explain why. He argues that many of us would agree that it is wrong to kill a human, and if you believe that then you should also have that view on abortions. If you think killing is wrong then you think all killing is wrong and the persons biological state, whether it is when a person is a fetus, one years old, or thirty years old, makes no difference. He then explains that killing is wrong not only because it is immoral, but wrong because it deprives the victim of life and the enjoyments one would have otherwise experienced; which Marquis believes is the greatest lost one can suffer (Marquis, 189). Given certain circumstances Marquis agrees there are cases where killing is acceptable, but nonetheless it is immoral.
...hese different analogies justify that abortion is morally permissible in different cases such as rape, contraceptive failure and pregnancies in which the mother’s life is at risk. Thomson agrees that women deserve the right to have an abortion based on their own right to life in the case where her life is at risk or in the case that the pregnancy was unwanted in the first place. With the combination of the reasons backing up these rights, Judith Thomson postulates a strong argument for her view on the morality of abortion. Thomson provides sensible arguments that can be pertinent to real world situations.
Abortion is an important and rather popular topic in the philosophical world. On one side of the argument, pro choice, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is permissible because the pregnancy might not have been voluntary or the mother’s life is at risk if she continues on with the pregnancy. On the opposing side of the argument, Don Marquis argues that abortion is wrong because it takes away all the potential things a fetus could value in their future life. In this paper, I will argue against Don Marquis view of abortion. I will begin by explaining that Marquis does not take into consideration the effect the pregnancy may have on the mother, and I will talk about how Thomson does take the mother into consideration. Next, I will criticize
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
The subject of abortion is always and will most likely continue to be a subject of controversy and disagreement. Basically we have two sides, one that is pro-life and the other being pro-choice. Judith Jarvis Thompson clearly takes the pro-choice stance and gives unique arguments on the subject of abortion. On the other hand Don Marquis supports the pro-life position on the topic of abortion. While neither will ever agree, both make points that will make you truly think about how you feel as an individual.
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 ...
“On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” by Mary Anne Warren is an in depth analysis of what, in Warren’s opinion, it is exactly that defines a person and human being, the moral community, fetal development and the right to life, potential personhood and the right to life, and infanticide. Warren believes that emotion and morality should be entirely separate, and that abortion should be legal for all women, as denial would be stripping women of basic human rights, the rights that a woman holds over an unborn fetus. I personally agree with her arguments on these topics as I agree that women should be allowed to have abortions on their own terms, without subjection of authority or society telling her what she can and cannot do, as well as I agree for the most part on her view of what a person is, potential personhood not outweighing the choice of abortion, and her reasoning on what defines a person of the moral community.
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.