A Defense of Abortion

A Defense of Abortion

In her argument on abortion, Judith Thomson discusses some major

points about abortion. She deals with extreme cases and those extreme

cases help us to realize a single perspective of abortion. For

example, she talks about the violinist attached to you. In that

example, you keep everything constant and focus on a single point,

violinist being dead if you unattached him. This way of thinking would

provide partial answers. That is, in real life moral issues are

combined of different extreme cases. This is where the flaw in her

argument is. Her argument misses out the fact that such extreme cases

do not occur alone. They occur in interconnection with other extreme

cases. To analyze the question of "Is abortion moral?" one must not

take different examples, but use a single example that includes most,

if not all of the cases. The only exception, for the reasons I will

state afterwards, is sexual harassment. This is the only extreme case

that occurs in real life.

To strengthen the argument I will try to look from a Kantian

perspective. . However, that does not imply that either Thomson or me

is correct. Abortion is a sensitive matter and is open to great

argumentation. I will use Kant just to make sure things that I say

make sense.

She is arguing that abortion is not impermissible, while pointing out

it is not always permissible. She came to this conclusion with the

different example which are taken alone. Each example represents a

different case. The violinist example, for instance focuses on the

fact that his life depends on yours. It does not include or

misrepresent other factors such as the emotional ...

... middle of paper ...

...ke the

violinist example Thomson provides. Not having an emotional attachment

and not wanting the baby in the first place gives you the option of

abortion. Considering this as the single exception, all the cases that

Thomson provides including the chocolate and the violinist example are

irrelevant since they are using the wrong yardsticks for measurement

of morality.

All in all, Thomson's examples are too extreme and they cannot be

applied to real life. Her examples are different cases by themselves

and need to be applied together. When applied together, the result

would be convincing enough. The reason why I came to different

conclusions with Thomson is that I tried to break her examples and I

used Kantian philosophy to back up my arguments. However, that does

not mean that either of us are correct in any sense.