More handpicked essays just for you.
Thomson defense of abortion main argument
Thomson defense of abortion main argument
Thomson defense of abortion main argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Both Thomson and Warren have permissive views on the abortion. Thomson claims that the abortion is morally permissible in a very early stage of the pregnancy because an unborn fetus is not a person early on the pregnancy. Especially, in the case of pregnant due to rape, she is inclined to allow the abortion. According to Warren, she insists that the abortion is permissible if an unwanted or defective infant is born into a society that cannot afford to raise a child (Timmons, 2014, p. 437). She states that a woman’s rights to freedom, happiness, and self-determination are violated due to an unwanted pregnancy (Timmons, 2014, p. 441).
Warren is in a stronger position than Thomson with respect to the permissibility of abortion. They have different
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.
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.
In the case of abortion, Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible in most cases; she does this by using two hypothetical examples. The first example being a violinist and the second example being human seeds. In this paper, I will reiterate the hypothetical analysis by Thomson, state reasons for this argument being the most plausible, and I will discuss the strongest objection to the arguments given by Thomson.
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.
Thomson notes that this example shatters the argument that abortion should not be permissible. Her example shows that it is
Thomson believes that the fetus has a right to life, but the mother has little to no obligation to carry on with her pregnancy. I feel this is a just action because of certain cases of abortion such as unplanned, rape, etc. I believe the fetus does have a right to life, but if the mother does not want to carry out her pregnancy, then she could at least leave it for adoption or find someone who is willing to care for her child. She also adds to her claim that it is wrong for a mother to have an abortion in the last trimester of her pregnancy due to, “a vacation.” I whole heartedly agree with Thomson because again, if the pregnancy is causing financial instability, doubts on caring for the child due to lack of education, or detrimental problems to her physical and mental health, the mother should be allowed to have an abortion.
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.
How is it decided on who lives? The opposing side says no abortion because that’s killing a person, whereas you can do nothing and let the mother’s death take its toll. Thomson creates a similar scenario of a growing child in a very small house. The mother will be crushed if she does nothing or she can act out in self-defense to protect herself. She claims that the mother shouldn’t have to be forced to wait there and be crushed, she can do something about it, just as with a life- threatening pregnancy. Then she argues that not all abortions are unjust killings. Some pregnancies are not planned, yet every way to avoid it, birth control, condoms, etc., was used. The mother should have a choice about her body on whether or not she wants to house this child. Thomson compares this to a burglar coming into your house. If you leave windows open and a burglar comes in, is it justified that he has to
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
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.
Before I begin to discuss Marry Ann Warrens’ article, “Abortion is Morally Permissible”, I wish to define the different views of abortion. The first view of abortion is a called, “Ultra-Conservative”, which state regardless of the reason, having an abortion is immoral. This, as I stated in my introductory paragraph, is my personal view of abortion.
In A Defense of Abortion, Thomson begins by establishing that while she does not believe a fetus is a person, for the sake of her argument she will permit the premise that a fetus is a person (Thomson 47). Thomson then states that while a fetus has a right to life, the mother also has a right to decide what happens in and to her body and that these two premises are self-evident (Thomson 50). She then states that in the case of abortion, surely the fetus’s right to life outweighs the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. For those who agree with that conclusion, Thomson offers the following thought
With respect to abortion, the female is regarded as the best person to know herself and her current situation, and dismisses those of the father. The female is the one who experiences the most difficulties of the pregnancy, and is the most affected by the pregnancy. Liberalism allows her to be at liberty to decide if she is ready to go through the difficulties of pregnancy, including the supporting a child after birth. If the choice of abortion was taken from the pregnant female, and she had no legal choice but to accept the unwanted pregnancy; the child could enter the world with an unprepared mother who, depending on her situation, might not be capable of supporting a child, thus possibly restricting the child’s opportunities later in life. These reasons are supported by Robin West, who states that the female is the one who has to go through the physical pains of pregnancy, the financial strains of supporting the child, and having her life opportunities narrowed and altered. It is evident then that the woman, who has the unwanted pregnancy, is the best person to know and decide the right moral decision, and not the state or another
The permissibility of abortion has been a crucial topic for debates for many years. People have yet to agree upon a stance on whether abortion is morally just. This country is divided into two groups, believers in a woman’s choice to have an abortion and those who stand for the fetus’s right to live. More commonly these stances are labeled as pro-choice and pro-life. The traditional argument for each side is based upon whether a fetus has a right to life. Complications occur because the qualifications of what gives something a right to life is not agreed upon. The pro-choice argument asserts that only people, not fetuses, have a right to life. The pro-life argument claims that fetuses are human beings and therefore they have a right to life. Philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, rejects this traditional reasoning because the right of the mother is not brought into consideration. Thomson prepares two theses to explain her reasoning for being pro-choice; “A right to life does not entail the right to use your body to stay alive” and “In the majority of cases it is not morally required that you carry a fetus to term.”
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