Judith Jarvis Thomson's controversial essay: A Defense of Abortion, takes an imaginative approach to the debate of abortion being impermissible, making her paper one of the most reprinted essays of philosophy. Thomson uses atypical examples to combat the most common reason for abortion being unjust: the fetus being human and the mother having responsibility for it. It has been said to be the best possible defense of abortion, however, is Thomson’s argument unbreakable and not open to criticism? Thomas initially seemingly strengthens her argument by accepting the most common criticism of abortion and uses absurd radical analogies unseen of before. Does Thomson’s imaginative way of reasoning, specifically her acorn and violinist thought experiments, …show more content…
Thomson exhibits great constructive self- criticism within her essay, but seemingly fails to address some very obvious holes. Initially, Thomson uses the analogy comparing a fetus to an acorn, in that an acorn cannot be said to be a tree. The argument that she is trying to present is that we do not have specific criteria when an acorn is a tree and therefore a similar idea onto a fetus. However, this is a false argument as there are many natural distinctions that we do make of the process of pregnancy. A fetus is not the same as a zygote and an embryo, and in fact the three of these terms are developmental landmarks within conception. The argument: “We can’t make any natural distinctions” is therefore initially false. Even if there are no natural distinctions within the processes of conception, and we allow that we cannot determine when a fetus is human or not, should we not still be cautious considering committing murder is a terrible thing to …show more content…
The experiment follows where you wake up one morning to find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist who has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment. The Society of Music Lovers, looking at all available medical records, has found that you are the only match, and therefore they have kidnapped you and attached you to the musician. A doctor thereafter says: “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 is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you” (334 Landeau). Thomson thereafter uses this argument in opposition to rape, and then changes the experiment ever slightly for every situation it cannot apply initially. I believe this experiment is initially very strong, as she starts with the most direct and relevant case in comparison to pregnancy: the violinist must stay connected, unplugged, for nine months. To deem the experiment more outrageous, Thomson adds in it that it could be nine years or even for the rest of a person’s life. I find that this falters her initial argument as it begins to become less relevant to an actual pregnancy. It seems as though she is aware that the initial
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.
In this paper I will discuss Don Marquis’s essay “Why Abortion is Immoral” and Judith Jarvis Thomson’s objections to Marquis’ argument against abortion.
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
As per the thought experiment, Thomson further argues that abortion only deprives the fetus of the use of a woman’s body and nothing else. This disanalogy is often ignored, for it only strengthens Thomson’s argument. Nitpicking between small differences offers no compelling logic to defeat the thought experiment. Similar to how opponents of Thomson’s rationalization carefully attack the smallest details, a distinction cannot be made of what life is more valuable.
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
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.
Thomson’s main idea is to show why Pro-Life Activists are wrong in their beliefs. She also wants to show that even if the fetus inside a women’s body had the right to life (as argued by Pro – Lifers), this right does not entail the fetus to have whatever it needs to survive – including usage of the woman’s body to stay alive.
In this paper I will be arguing in favor of Judith Jarvis Thomson view point on abortion. I am defending the use abortion and only in the first trimester. I will consider Don Marquis objections of the practice but ultimately side with Thomson.
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.
Patrick Lee and Robert P. George’s, “The Wrong of Abortion” is a contentious composition that argues the choice of abortion is objectively unethical. Throughout their composition, Lee and George use credibility and reason to appeal the immorality of abortions. The use of these two methods of persuasion are effective and compels the reader to consider the ethical significance. Lee and George construct their argument by disputing different theories that would justify abortions. They challenge the ontological and evaluation theories of the fetus, as well as the unintentional killing theory. This article was obtained through Google, in the form of a PDF file that is associated with Iowa State University.
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
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.
middle of paper ... ... 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. Although she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent.
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”.