Introduction
This essay will examine an often discussed pro-choice analogy. It will consider to what extent the abortion issue is still controversial if the terms of this analogy are accepted as true. This essay will first discuss the premises of the analogy in question. Then it will consider counter-arguments to the analogy. The objective of this paper is to make a determination on whether the controversial nature of the issue of abortion still pertains in light of the acorn analogy. It will be the argument of this paper that this controversy is not subdued by the acorn-fetus comparison.
Acorn Analogy and Related Issues
The acorn analogy means that oak trees are grown from acorns as human beings are grown from fetuses. Thus every acorn is a potential oak tree as every fetus is a potential human being. However, the fetus is not a human being from the point of conception any more than the acorn is an oak tree. Therefore, terminating the existence of one or the other is not tantamount to murdering a full developed living being. This is the argument that Thomson (47-48) presents in her oft-cited work on the permissibility of abortion.
The argument that an acorn is not an oak tree delineates where the determination should be made concerning whether a person exists. Indeed, one of the main controversies in the debate over abortion rights, hinges on the question of whether a person exists at the point of conception, during its development in the womb, or after birth. Thomson (47-48) allows that the fetus clearly develops into a human being prior to birth. She points out that, by the tenth week of pregnancy, the fetus has quickly evolved into a living being with discernible human physical characteristics. That is to...
... middle of paper ...
... for the outcome. Pro-life advocates argue that the pregnancy must be carried to term regardless. This is based on pro-life notions of natural duty and obligation to take care of one's relatives (Hershenov 129-130). Thus part of the pro-life argument appears to involve regulating human sexual behavior. With these counter-arguments in mind, it is likely that the acorn analogy does not make the abortion issue any less controversial.
Works Cited
Hershenov, D. B. Abortions and distortions: An analysis of morally irrelevant factors in Thomson’s violinist thought experiment. Social Theory and Practice, 27.1 (2008): 129-148.
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1.1 (Fall 1971): 47-66.
Pacholczyk, Tad. "Making Sense Out of Bioethics." Ncbcenter.org. N.d. Web. http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=295. December 3, 2013.
Milbauer, Barbara. The Law Giveth: Legal Aspects of the Abortion Controversy. Atheneum, New York: 1983.
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.
Thomson provides the example of being hooked up for nine months to provide dialysis to an ailing violinist to expose how a fetus’s right to life does not supersede a mother’s right to make medical decisions about her body (48-49). I find that this thought experiment especially helpful in understanding how even though a fetus does have a right to life, because the continuation of their life hinges on the consent of their mother to use her body, it falls to the mother to choose whether or not to allow the fetus to develop to term.
Works Cited Warren, Mary Anne. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Trans. Array Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology. . 2 nd.
The pro-life stance on abortion is often associated with and defended by traditional Christian beliefs , ; however, this paper will argue that it can and should be defended with secular arguments that appeal to reason and our shared human condition. This paper will try and counter the notion that the argument is simply another battlefield where religion and secular thought meet. Rather, it is an important issue that carries with it heavy implications not only for the religious but also for the secular. The major arguments discussed include the emotional and physical toll on the mother, the societal toll of having abortion legalized, and the rights attributed to every human being; first, however, the stance taken in this paper will be further defined and clarified.
To help argue her point, Thomson first begins with an analogy comparing an acorn of an oak tree to the fetus in a woman’s body. She begins by giving the view of the Pro – Lifers; “It is concluded that the fetus is…a person from the moment of conception” (page 113). She then goes on to say, “similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak tree, and it does not follow that acorns are Oak trees…” (Page 113). This analogy helps illustrate how much she disagrees with this Pro –life argument. She calls it a “slippery- slope argument” and goes to say, “…it is dismaying that opponents of abortion rely on them so heavily and uncritically” (page 113). Although Thomson makes it clear that she disagrees with the notion that a fetus is a person (…I think the premise is false, that the fetus is not a person from th...
In Thomson’s article, “A Defense of Abortion,” Thomson argues that abortion is not impermis-sible because she agrees with the fact that fetus has already become a human person well before birth, from the moment of conception (Thomson, 268 & 269). Besides that, she also claims that every person has a right to live, does so a fetus, because a fetus is a person who has a right to live.
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).
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”.
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 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.
Warren, Mary Anne , and Mappes and D. DeGrazia. "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion." Biomedical Ethics 4th (1996): 434-440. Print.
Hinman, Lawrence. “Abortion: A Guide to the Ethical Issues.” May 13, 2010. University of San
Warren, M. A. (1973) 'On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion', Monist, vol. 57, no. 1.
Thompson’s theses are strengthened by both hypothetical and real life examples. She begins by granting that fetuses become people from the moment of conception and therefore have rights. Thompson employs this strategy to disparage the traditional argument so that we can cultivate a deeper analysis on the permissibility of abortion. The first analogy Thomson applies is one where you are drugged; a famous violinist is attached to you and he must use your kidneys for nine months in order to live. This situation cultivates the question of whether or not you are allowed to unplug from the violinist. If a person were to acce...