Hares takes on a Kantian Approach; a duty. He uses a concept that a fetus is not a “person” because it does not have the rights. He says that the characteristic and a duty to have a right are considered as “human beings”. Hare says that we don’t know whether the fetus would turn into a human adult or a horse (Luper and Brown, p. 585). He presents two principles: Pro-life and Pro-choice; life and liberty. If mothers terminate a pregnancy, then she is offending the principle of preserving life, and if a third-party stops the mother from an abortion, then they are defending against the mother’s pro-life and pro-choice decisions (Luper and Brown, p. 586). . The fetus should be considered as an “it” rather than a “person” However, Hares says that …show more content…
The “Samaritan Argument” Thomson points out two Samaritan; the Good Samaritan and the Minimally Decent Samaritan. She gave a story about these two Samaritans; one day a man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and was attacked by thieves that left him half dead. The Minimally Decent Samaritan (priest and Levite) looked at the man and walked pass the man, while, the Good Samaritan helped the man; took care of him in a hotel. She gives another example that a girl was being murder while peoples just watched and did nothing. The people who did nothing did not get charged, so mothers who want an abortion is not a crime. The Good Samaritan would’ve came and tried to stop the act of killing, however, she said it’s not the Good Samaritan, but the Splendid Samaritan; risk his life for the girl (Luper and Brown, p. 604). Thomson says that God wants everyone to be the Good Samaritan. However, according to the law, no one is required to sacrifice their life for anyone else (a stranger) nor become a Good Samaritan. She uses the “violinist argument” to prove this that the person’s attached to the violinist can extricate themselves and it is no injustice to the violinist (Luper and Brown, p.605). Thomson says that a Good Samaritan would not refuse and take responsibility of a stranger, or a Splendid Samaritan would sacrifice his life for a stranger. She gives an example of a Minimally Decent Samaritan; a fourteen-year-old girl became pregnant due to rape and chooses to abort it. She says that is indecent if the mother requests an abortion, and the doctor agrees to perform
Alternatively, one might think that having the right to life means that one has the right not to be killed. Again, though, Thomson thinks that the violinist case shows this to be false; surely one can unplug oneself from the violinist, even though doing so kills him. Pathos were included when she provided the example of the violinist. If one attempts to alter the definition by suggesting instead that having the right to life means having the right not to be killed unjustly, then one has done little to advance the debate on abortion. She states that the third party don’t have the right to have the choice of killing the person. She went with the logos and pathos way when she was trying to explain what was going to happen. It shows how Thompson agrees with how the choice of life is not up to the third party or anybody else. With pathos and logos, Thomson further argues that even if women are partially being usually responsible for the presence of the fetus, because it is a voluntarily by engaging in intercourse with the full knowledge that pregnancy might result, it does not thereby follow that they bear a special moral responsibility toward
In conclusion, Thompson's criticisms of the Standard anti-abortion argument are false. Premise 1 stays true as life begins at conception because that is the point when the fetus starts to grow. Premise 2 stays alive because murder is both illegal and morally wrong. Why? because you are depriving them of their future and causing harm to the people who love the victim. And lastly, premise 4 remains true because there is a difference between not helping someone live and directly killing them, thereby proving the case of the unconscious violinist as not analogous. All in all, the standard anti-abortion argument remains a sound argument.
The argument for the moral rights of the unborn child against abortion still holds true because the child cannot be viewed as a virus that abortion presents a cure because the rights of a fetus is reserves in its identity as a member of the Homo sapien community. Therefore, any acts against an unborn child( or fetus), although presently legal, should be considered as morally unjust, which is equal to the act of murder because what is killed in an abortion is not simply, a housing of organ but a human being equal to any other. Furthermore, the idea of justifying an abortion, which essentially should be viewed as the forceful and unnatural death, of an unborn child based on the assumption that he or she cannot express thoughts, or desires therefore rendering their members to full moral rights . Thus, it negates the feeling of pain and hardships that are experience by a fetus as it is forcefully yank out the worm of his
Thomson concludes that there are no cases where the person pregnant does not have the right to chose an abortion. Thomson considers the right to life of the pregnant person by presenting the case of a pregnant person dying as a result from their pregnancy. In this case, the right of the pregnant person to decide what happens to their body outweighs both the fetus and the pregnant person 's right to life. The right to life of the fetus is not the same as the pregnant person having to die, so as not to infringe on the right of the fetus. In the case of the violinist, their necessity for your body for life is not the same as their right over the use of your body. Thomson argues that having the right to life is not equal to having the right to use the body of another person. They argue that this is also the case, even if the the pregnant person knowingly participated in intercourse and knew of the possibility of pregnancy. In this case it would seem that abortion would not be permissible since the pregnancy was not by force. However, we are reverted back to the case of rape. If a fetus conceived voluntarily has the right not to be aborted due to how it was conceived, then the fetus conceived from rape should also have that same right. Instead of creating a distinction of cases where the fetus has a right to use the body of a pregnant person, Thomson instead makes a distinction of when abortion would be morally
Many arguments in the abortion debate assume that the morality of abortion depends upon the moral status of the foetus. While I regard the moral status of the foetus as important, it is not the central issue that determines the moral justifiability of abortion. The foetus may be awarded a level of moral status, nevertheless, such status does not result in the prescription of a set moral judgement. As with many morally significant issues, there are competing interests and a variety of possible outcomes that need to be considered when making a moral judgement on abortion. While we need to determine the moral status of the foetus in order to establish the type of entity we are dealing with, it does not, however, exist in a moral vacuum. There are other key issues requiring attention, such as the moral status and interests of the pregnant woman who may desire an abortion, and importantly, the likely consequences of aborting or not aborting a particular foetus. Furthermore, I assert that moral status should be awarded as a matter of degree, based upon the capacities of sentience and self-consciousness an entity possesses. In a bid to reach a coherent conclusion on the issue, the moral status of both foetus and woman, along with the likely results of aborting a particular foetus, must be considered together. Given the multiple facets requiring consideration, I assert that utilitarianism (Mill 1863) offers a coherent framework for weighing and comparing the inputs across a variety of situations, which can determine whether it is ever morally justifiable to have an abortion.
According to Thomson, unjust killing comes from the result of depriving someone from a right that they own. In the Henry Fonda case, Fonda was given the magical ability to cure a sickness with just one touch over a fevered brow. So, Fonda has the right to volunteer in touching the fevered brow, but is not obligated to do so because the sick person does not own the right of Henry Fonda’s hand. This analogy is very significant in comparison to Thomson’s argument on justified abortion because it shows that the mother should not be held to any constraints because she has the freedom to her body. Given the fact that the mother has the authority to make any decisions she wants; abortion will always be justified because she is not obligated to give
She again uses a thought experiment where she presents a situation where if a mother were to carry her fetus to term that it would kill her. She states “we are told that performing the abortion would be directly killing the child, whereas doing nothing would not be killing the mother, but only letting her die,” which opens up an argument of the difference over killing a person and just letting them die when in this situation the mother could live if she was able to abort the pregnancy. She presents four scenarios to which this situation could end. The first is that killing an innocent is impermissible, so an abortion cannot take place. The second is killing an innocent is equivalent to murder, and murder is never okay so therefore an abortion can not take place. The third is, killing an innocent is worse then letting a person die therefore an abortion may not be performed. Finally, the fourth scenario is that if you have to choose between killing a person and letting them die you have to choose letting someone die and an abortion may not take place. She goes on to say that all of the scenarios are all false, but then only provides a reasoning for the second scenario saying that if the mother performed an abortion to save her own life that it could not
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).
The definition of a person is an aspect of the abortion issue which raises some very difficult questions. Is an unborn baby a person? When does the unborn baby become a person? This is a difficult question because in order for one to answer it, he must define the essence of a person. When describing the essence of something, one needs to describe the necessary and sufficient conditions of that thing. So how does one define the essence of a person? Kant describes a person as a rational being. Some people define the essence of a person from more of a biological standpoint. Nevertheless, defining the essence of a person is a very difficult thing for a group of people to agree on. One’s own definition of a person would most likely greatly impact his opinion on whether abortion is morally justified ...
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 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.
...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.
Thomson’s argument is presented in three components. The first section deals with the now famous violinist thought experiment. This experiment presents a situation in which you wake up one morning and discover you have been kidnapped and hooked up to an ailing violinist so that his body would have the use of your kidneys for the next nine months. The intuitive and instinctive reaction to this situation is that you have no moral duty to remain hooked up to the violinist, and more, that he (or the people who kidnapped you) does not have the right to demand the use of your body for this period. From a deontological point of view, it can be seen that in a conflict between the right of life of the fetus and the right to bodily integrity of the mother, the mother’s rights will trump those of the fetus. Thomson distills this by saying “the right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly”.
However, in order for her thesis to be correct, the Bystander at the Switch case must always be morally permissible. There should be no situation in which it is morally impermissible to kill the one and save the five. If there were such a situation, where both parts of Thomson’s thesis remained true but it would still be morally impermissible to kill the one because of some outside factor, then Thomson’s thesis would no longer be the complete answer.
For example, a mother who opts to abort lives a life full of misery and guilt following her unethical action. The same issue is explored by Kant, where he argues that frequent abortions would make the human race extinct. Therefore, not irrational or good to the society. Lastly, they argue that abortion denies the fetus the right to life which is granted by the Human Rights Commission. Judith Thomson argument that a human embryo is a person indicates that he or she has the right to life, and no one has a right to terminate it (Baird & Stuart, 78). Therefore, abortion is unacceptable, irrational and immoral action to