Abortion has been a perplexing and controversial debate throughout time. There are many articles and philosophers who state their strong polarized opinions on whether it is ethical to have an abortion. Some people believe that abortion is morally unacceptable and under no circumstances will it ever be acceptable. On the contrary, other people believe that a woman should have the right to choose whether she wants to continue with the pregnancy, especially under certain conditions. In “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thomson uses real-life analogies to illustrate her key argument that, even assuming a fetus is considered a person from the moment of conception, the mother and the fetus have an equal right to life. Thomson believes that the human fetus doesn’t have the right to occupy a woman’s body for survival, if it against her will. Thomson argues that, even if we grant that the fetus has the right to life, abortion would still be morally permissible in cases of rape, dangerous pregnancy or contraceptive failure. In this essay, I will argue that even if the fetus has the right to life, abortion, is still morally acceptable in the case of ectopic pregnancy, rape and contraceptive failure, as the fetus doesn’t have the right to use a woman’s body without her consent or if it endangers her.
Judith Thomson uses different analogies to justify that in, most cases, abortion is morally acceptable. She states at the end of “A Defense of Abortion”, that she although she having an abortion isn’t always permissible for example it would be wrong for a women to demand for an abortion if she was going on a vacation. She also says that she is not arguing for the right to “secure death of the unborn child… You may detach yourself even if...
... middle of paper ...
...hese different analogies justify that abortion is morally permissible in different cases such as rape, contraceptive failure and pregnancies in which the mother’s life is at risk. Thomson agrees that women deserve the right to have an abortion based on their own right to life in the case where her life is at risk or in the case that the pregnancy was unwanted in the first place. With the combination of the reasons backing up these rights, Judith Thomson postulates a strong argument for her view on the morality of abortion. Thomson provides sensible arguments that can be pertinent to real world situations.
Works Cited
• Boonin, David, and Graham Oddie. What's Wrong?: Applied Ethicists and Their Critics. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.
• "Who Are the Victims?” Who Are the Victims? | RAINN | Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. N.p., 2012. Web. 23 Feb. 2014.
Furthermore, Lee and George then dispute another argument, which they call “the evaluative version.” This arguments contends that a fetus becomes valuable and bearers of rights during a later time. Lee and George dispute various scenarios in this version. For example, Judith Thomson supported abortion by comparing the right to life with the right to vote. Lee and George attacks Thomson objection by stating
In her essay, “A Defense for Abortion,” Judy Jarvis Thomson primarily argues for the permissibility of abortion, due to rape, but it can be challenged by exposing flaws in her argument that relies heavily on analogy. However, objections to Thomson’s explanation fail to defeat her argument.
There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.
Judith Jarvis Thomson, in "A Defense of Abortion", argues that even if we grant that fetuses have a fundamental right to life, in many cases the rights of the mother override the rights of a fetus. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants the initial contention that the fetus has a right to life at the moment of conception. However, Thomson explains, it is not self-evident that the fetus's right to life will always outweigh the mother's right to determine what goes on in her body. Thomson also contends that just because a woman voluntarily had intercourse, it does not follow that the fetus acquires special rights against the mother. Therefore, abortion is permissible even if the mother knows the risks of having sex. She makes her points with the following illustration. Imagine that you wake up one morning and find that you have been kidnapped, taken to a hospital, and a famous violist has been attached to your circulatory system. You are told that the violinist was ill and you were selected to be the host, in which the violinist will recover in nine months, but will die if disconnected from you before then. Clearly, Thomson argues, you are not morally required to continue being the host. In her essay she answers the question: what is the standard one has to have in order to be granted a right to life? She reflects on two prospects whether the right to life is being given the bare minimum to sustain life or ir the right to life is merely the right not to be killed. Thomson states that if the violinist has more of a right to life then you do, then someone should make you stay hooked up to the violinist with no exceptions. If not, then you should be free to go at a...
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Thomson appeals to the strongest case for abortion, rape, to define the rights of the fetus and the pregnant person. Thomson concludes that there are no cases where the person pregnant does not have the right to choose an abortion. Thomson considers the right to life of the pregnant person by presenting the case of a pregnant person dying as a result of 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 first scenario given in “A Defense of Abortion” is pregnancy due to rape. Thomson gives us the example of being kidnapped and unwillingly attached to the violinist to be his own personal life support system. Basically, the violinist has in a way become your Siamese twin and needs to stay attached to your body in order to survive. Likewise, a fetus needs to stay inside, attached, to the mother’s body in order to grow. Most people would agree that there would be no moral obligation to compromise your quality of life for the violinist who did not have your consent to use your body. What about the unb...
Over the duration 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 consideration to her reproductive rights. The drawback, however, is that there is no agreement upon when life begins and at which point one crosses the line from unalienable rights to murder.
One of the most dominant articles on abortion is Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion.” The article was written in 1971. In her article, Thomson defends the thesis that the impermissibility of abortion does not follow from the premises: that the fetuses are a person and that every person has a right to life. Thomson argues that even if the fetus is considered to be a person, the fetus’s right to life will not always outweigh the mother rights to decide what happens in and to her body. She also argues that even if a woman voluntarily had intercourse it does not mean that the fetus obtains special rights against his mother. Thomson’s article is seen as presenting the best possible defense of abortion, peculiarly with the famous “violinist”
According to Judith Thomson in her book “A Defense of Abortion”, a human embryo is a person who has a right to life. But, just because the human fetus has the right to life does not mean that the mother will be forced to carry it (Thomson, 48). Naturally, abortion may be seen as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy before the fetal viability. Though people have understood this, the topic of abortion has remained a controversial issue in the world. Individuals are divided into “Pro-choice” and “Pro-life” debaters depending on their opinion on the morality of the action. "Pro-life," the non-consequentialist side, is the belief that abortion is wrong, generally because it equates to killing. "Pro-choice," the consequentialist view, however,