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.
Miss Thomson begins her paper with an attempt to dismantle her opposition’s credibility for the purpose of sounding more credible herself. She states that all the arguments anti-abortionists hold proposed a slippery slope fallacy. However, all she has done here is made an
…show more content…
Is Miss Thomson saying that the main purpose of sexual intercourse is to give and receive pleasure? This cannot be true on a basis of basic biology. We can clearly observe that the main purpose to create offspring. I am not saying that pleasure is not a result of partaking in the act, but it is not the end goal of said act. One could argue that what I am saying is, “You must only use a body part for its biological use.” And in this they would be mistaken. What I am saying is if you plant a seed and expect it not to grow you will be severely disappointed. Thomson does a very good job of setting up arguments to work in her favor though her arguments are not absolute and should not be considered infallible. Most of her arguments just sound selfish. She uses words such as “grant” and “allow” when speaking about the relationship between a mother and a
Thomson’s essay was created as a strong, convincing essay. Thomson uses pathos when explaining the example for the mother and child situation. Thomson states “Some won’t even make an exception for a case in which continuation of the pregnancy is likely to shorten the mother’s life; they regard abortion as impermissible even to save the mother’s life.” (Thomson, 50) that even when the mother’s life is endangered, they still regard abortion as impermissible. However the case stated before is extremely rare and many people who are against abortion doesn’t believe in the extreme view. She states that “The extreme view could of course be weakened to say that while abortion is permissible to save the mother’s life, it may not be performed by a third party but only by the mother’s life.” (Thomson) the mother and child share the same body so it should be left in her hands to control the situation. Most up till now mostly showed a mixture of logos and pathos, but it did include the least amount of ethos. She gave an example “Suppose a woman has become pregnant, and learns that she has a cardiac condition such that she will die if she carries the baby to term. What may be done for him? And also if the fetus has the right to live, but as the mother is a person too, so has a right to life, but as the mother is a person
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
middle of paper ... ... To speak plainly, the issue of abortion is a slippery slope of morality. While siding with the Pro-Choice side myself, it felt necessary to examine Warren’s opinion so as to give constructive criticism and potentially help strengthen her argument for the future. Through Warren’s lack of sound consideration for what constitutes a personhood and numerous issues regarding potential personhood, it is clear that the conversation still has a long way to go.
The topic of my paper is abortion. In Judith Jarvis Thomson's paper, “A Defense of Abortion,” she presented a typical anti-abortion argument and tried to prove it false. I believe there is good reason to agree that the argument is sound and Thompson's criticisms of it are false.
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.
This essay examines and critiques Judith Jarvis Thomson’s, A Defense of Abortion (1971). Thomson sets out to show that the foetus does not have a right to the mother’s body and that it would not be unjust to perform an abortion when the mother’s life is not threatened. For the sake of the argument, Thomson adopts the conservative view that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. The conservative argument asserts that every person has a right to life. The foetus has a right to life.
I decided to do my Rhetorical Analysis on an article I found called "Abortion in the American Context" written by John T. Noonar, Jr. Noonar explains in this article that abortion is still a main issue and it still exists in America. He expresses his opinion on abortion and he agree that abortion has become a really big issue in America and that we need to fix it and deal it with care. As I continue to read the article he expresses and uses effective Rhetorical analysis to make us agree upon his statement.
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 pregnant 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 is a sense of moral obligation not to have an abortion. Their discussion about third party participation can be used for other types of third party participation.
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).
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 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 Thomson’s article, “A Defense of Abortion,” Thomson argues that abortion is not impermis-sible because she agrees with the fact that fetus has already become a human person well before birth, from the moment of conception (Thomson, 268 & 269). Besides that, she also claims that every person has a right to live, does so a fetus, because a fetus is a person who has a right to live.
...e open to all women at any point of pregnancy, and that the woman reserves the right as a fully conscious member of the moral community to choose to carry the child or not. 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. However much she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent. Warren rejects emotional appeal in a very Vulcan like manner; devout to reason and logic and in doing so has created a well-written paper based solely on this rational mindset.
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.
According to Judith Thomson in her book “A Defense of Abortion”, a human embryo is a person who has a right to life. But, just because the human fetus has the right to life does not mean that the mother will be forced to carry it (Thomson, 48). Naturally, abortion may be seen as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy before the fetal viability. Though people have understood this, the topic of abortion has remained a controversial issue in the world. Individuals are divided into “Pro-choice” and “Pro-life” debaters depending on their opinion on the morality of the action. "Pro-life," the non-consequentialist side, is the belief that abortion is wrong, generally because it equates to killing. "Pro-choice," the consequentialist view, however,