In her essay “A Feminist Defense of Abortion” Sally Markowitz addresses the Autonomy defense as not being feminist in nature. She comes to this conclusion by recognizing that the right to bodily autonomy is not just a female right but a right that is innate for every person, male or female. Markowitz then asserts that the human right to bodily autonomy in regard to abortion should not be a gender neutral defense. Many feminists have come to the conclusion that the Autonomy Defense works against women in the courts as it shifts the focus away from gender inequality. Feminists have adopted the belief that sometimes gender should be relevant in claiming rights. To fail to claim a right on the basis of gender in the situation of abortion would obscure the relationship between reproductive practices and their oppression. The overriding right to bodily autonomy is considered characteristically male by many feminists. Females in contrasts seem to be assumed to be …show more content…
From a feminist standpoint she argues that anyone regardless of their race, financial situation, or gender can end up with a helpless older loved one and paying taxes but only women can end up pregnant. So therefore, anti abortion laws do not require the sacrifice of everyone but rather just the sacrifice of women. Markowitz suggests the Impermissible Sacrifice Principle which states that it is impermissible to require an oppressed group to make sacrifices that perpetuate their oppression. The Impermissible Sacrifice Principle focuses not on the rights of individuals but on the power relationship between groups. Markowitz also makes a point to say that the Impermissible Sacrifice Principle should be applied to all oppressed peoples not just to women. In this way feminists can practice solidarity with other oppressed
Thomas begins her argument by asking the reader to imagine a situation in which a famous violinist will die unless he is connected to them in order to gain use of your kidneys. In this scenario, the Society of Music Lovers for this task has also kidnapped them against their will. Because after checking all the medical documents, they were the perfect match for the operation. While they were unconscious, the violinist's circulatory system was "plugged into them, so that their kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as their own". Now they have two choices, either unplug themselves from the violinist, which results in his death; or wait nine months until he is recovered and can be unplugged safely. Thomson likens the plight of the reader's well-being and the violinist to that of a child conceived during a rape and its mother.
The committed organization has thus kidnapped you and attached his circulatory system to yours through various technological means in order to extract poisons from his blood. If you were to disconnect, or unplug yourself from the violinist, he would immediately die, but in nine months he would have recovered and could be safely detached. Thomson concludes that a person’s right to life does not trump the right to use another person’s body. Thus, if you disconnect from the violinist, you will merely deprive him of your body- to which he has no right. However, if you continue to stay connected to the artist, you will only be doing a kindness on your part, not an obligation.
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
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 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.
Famous author Dr. Seuss states that a “person is a person no matter how small.”
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.
No other element of the Women’s Rights Movement has generated as much controversy as the debate over reproductive rights. As the movement gained momentum so did the demand for birth control, sex education, family planning and the repeal of all abortion laws. On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision which declared abortion "fundamental right.” The ruling recognized the right of the individual “to be free from unwanted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (US Supreme Court, 1973) This federal-level ruling took effect, legalizing abortion for all women nationwide.
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.
In the second part of the twentieth century, women’s rights once again gained a lot of momentum. The women’s liberation movement was born out of women civil right activists who were tired of waiting for legislative change for women’s rights. Even though women are being recognized more in society, they still face difficult issues. Sexism –especially in the workforce –is becoming a major issue, birth control pills are still not popular, and abortions are frowned upon in society. The case Roe v. Wade is about a woman with the fake name of Jane Roe who wanted an abortion but the state of Texas would not let her unless her life was in danger. She sued the district attorney of Dallas County saying that it violated the right to privacy under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. Usually, some arguments for being against abortions are because it is like killing a life, religious reasons, and less chance of future pregnancies. Some arguments that approve abortion are the rights of privacy and the mother to make her own decision. I decided to pick the landmark case Roe v. Wade because there are many ways to argue for and against abortions, so I wanted to give it an overarching view before I personally pick a side. Roe v. Wade is a significant case because it shows how rights in the Constitution do not have to be explicitly mentioned for it to implement and the change in abortion laws that affect women.
...ofeminists and pacifist feminists take to be characteristically masculine; it shows a willingness to use violence in order to take control. The fetus is destroyed by being pulled apart by suction, cut in pieces, or poisoned." Wolf-Devine goes on to point out that "in terms of social thought . . . it is the masculine models which are most frequently employed in thinking about abortion. If masculine thought is naturally hierarchical and oriented toward power and control, then the interests of the fetus (who has no power) would naturally be suppressed in favor of the interests of the mother. But to the extent that feminist social thought is egalitarian, the question must be raised of why the mother's interests should prevail over the child's . . . . Feminist thought about abortion has . . . been deeply pervaded by the individualism which they so ardently criticize."32
In the Judith Jarvis Thomson’s paper, “A Defense of Abortion”, the author argues that even though the fetus has a right to life, there are morally permissible reasons to have an abortion. Of course there are impermissible reasons to have an abortion, but she points out her reasoning why an abortion would be morally permissible. She believes that a woman should have control of her body and what is inside of her body. A person and a fetus’ right to life have a strong role in whether an abortion would be okay. Thomson continuously uses the story of a violinist to get the reader to understand her point of view.
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.
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.