In Judith Jarvis Thomson’s essay, “A Defense of Abortion,” she defends the right of a woman to have an abortion in certain circumstances. Even though she personally believes that a fetus should not be considered a person, she grants that it is for her argument. Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible in some circumstances even when the fetus is considered a person. To help illustrate her point, she uses the violinist case in which an innocent person is hooked up to a famous violinist to save his life to help illustrate her point. Even though she grants that the fetus is a person, Thomson weakens her argument in favor of abortion in certain circumstances by including a false principle and a faulty analogy to support her conclusion. …show more content…
One of the circumstances in which Thompson believes that abortion is morally permissible is in the case when a woman becomes pregnant due to a rape.
She defends this statement with the violinist case. In the violinist case, a person is abducted by the Society of Music Lovers and attached to a famous violinist because he or she alone has the correct blood type to filter toxins from the violinist’s kidneys. The person must now stay hooked up to the violinist for nine months because if he or she were to unplug from the violinist, he would surely die. The violinist has a right to life and to unplug from him would be to kill him. Thomson believes that the person who was abducted and a woman who becomes pregnant as the result of a rape are both put in a situation in which another person relies on the woman’s body for benefit through no fault of her own. According to Thomson, being abducted is like being raped because in both situations the person affected is not giving consent to the actions. Like the violinist using the person’s body to detoxify his kidneys, a fetus relies on the mother for nutrition and shelter. The general principle Thomson takes from the case that she perceives to be analogous to having an abortion in the case of pregnancy by rape is that if an innocent person becomes involved in a situation in which another is dependent upon the innocent person’s body for benefit or even to maintain his or her life through no fault of the innocent person, then that person …show more content…
is not morally obligated to remain in the situation. Thomson uses the following argument to explain why abortion is morally permissible in the case of rape. P1) Assuming that one has done nothing to voluntarily place one’s self under a special obligation, then one has no special obligation to allow his or her body to be used for someone else’s benefit or even to save or sustain someone’s life. P2) A woman who has been raped has done nothing voluntarily to take on the obligation to allow the fetus the use of her body. --------------- C) A woman who is pregnant as the result of rape is not obligated to sustain the life of the fetus and has a right to an abortion. One problem with Thomson’s argument is that her principle is false. Suppose a woman becomes pregnant due to a rape. She does not exhibit any symptoms of pregnancy and finds out that she is pregnant when it is time to deliver the child. This woman also has deeply held views against breastfeeding and chooses to only formula feed her baby. However, the baby refuses the bottle and the breast milk of any other woman besides the mother. Breastfeeding the child is the only way in which this particular child can receive the nutrition it needs to survive. This scenario poses a problem for Thomson’s argument because the mother of the child did not voluntarily bring about the dependence of the child to use her body to sustain its life, yet she will need to breastfeed the child in order to sustain its life. Thomson’s principle implies that if an innocent person becomes involved in a situation in which another is dependent upon the innocent person’s body for benefit or even to maintain his or her life through no fault of the innocent person then that person is not morally obligated to remain in the situation. According to this principle, the mother could refuse to nurse the child because she is not obligated to sustain its life as she did not voluntarily place herself under a special obligation. However, some people would be horrified that the woman chose to let her child die instead of compromising her beliefs and breastfeeding. Thomson’s argument is also not plausible because her support for her argument is a faulty analogy.
Although Thomson believes that the violinist and the fetus both rely on someone else to sustain their life, they do so in very different ways. Pregnancy is a natural process while dialysis via another person is nearly a medical impossibility. A person’s kidneys were not designed to perform dialysis by extracting toxins on another person’s kidneys, but a mother’s womb was specifically designed for the growth and protection of a fetus. Mathew Lu, author of The Human Life Review website, says, “[a] normal pregnancy by its own nature, ends in birth. . . In other words, the embedding of the early embryo into the uterine lining is not a ‘plugging in’—there is no equivalent external agent that does the plugging” (Lu). The violinist on the other hand is artificially hooked up to another person so that the other person can perform dialysis on the violinist’s failing kidneys. He could possibly receive life sustaining treatment through dialysis via a machine which means that the other person’s kidneys are not his only source of survival. The fetus, on the other hand, can only survive inside its mother’s womb. Because these two cases are fundamentally different, what applies to one will not necessarily apply to the
other. In conclusion, I have presented challenges to Thomson’s argument and analogy in support of abortion in the case of a rape. The breastfeeding example provides a situation in which a mother has an obligation to a child even though she did not voluntarily bring about the circumstances of the dependence. The violinist analogy also doesn’t provide proper support for Thomson’s argument because it tries to compare two situations which are fundamentally different. Even though at first glance Thomson’s argument seems flawless, a closer inspection proved otherwise.
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.
Judith Jarvis Thomson makes an interesting argument on the defense of abortion. She uses a libertarian framework believing in the doctrine of free will on a rights based account that a women and the fetus that she carries have equal rights. She makes clear, that “the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception.” In her specific argument she believes that every person has a right to life, and our obligation to one another as human beings is to not interfere with the rights of others and are not obligated to intervene past that. Her specific argument is convincing.
Likewise, Thompson holds that a pregnant woman possesses the right to defend herself against her attacker. No matter if the invader is a rapist attempting to harm her from outside or a foetus that may harm her from the inside. The woman still has a moral liberty to repel her attacker by killing the intruder. Killing a person and abolishing their ‘right to life’ cannot be named as immoral when performed in self-defence. Therefore, an abortion is permissible in the ‘extreme case’ whereby continuing with the pregnancy may result in serious injury or death of the woman. However, it can be argued that although it is permissible to act in self-defence against an invader, the foetus is no such invader and should not be treated like one. Unlike the violinist who was artificially attached to you, the foetus is surviving due to the mother’s biological organs and by the natural processes of reproduction and this yields a special relationship. Therefore, this appears to be a crucial difference between the violinist and the foetus. The natural environment of the violinist is not your body, whereas the natural environment of the foetus is within the mother’s womb. Furthermore, the violinist is trespassing because your body is not their natural environment whereas a foetus cannot
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...
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 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.
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.
The typical anti-abortion argument is as follows: 1. Every fetus is a person, 2. Every person has the right to life, 3. Every fetus has the right to life [1,2], 4. Everything that has the right to life may not be killed, 5. Every fetus may not be killed [3,4]. Premise 1 is taken from page 297 in our book when Thompson states, “Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person…” Premise 2 and conclusion 3 are taken from page 298 when Thomson says “Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life.” Premise 4 is taken from page 298 when Thomson states “So the fetus may not be killed.” She does not explicitly state the premise, "Everything that has the right to life may not be killed," but we can infer this since in the previous premises she stated that every fetus is a person and every person has the right to life. So since that is true then we can substitute fetus for everything that has the right to life, therefore stating everything that has the right to life may not be killed. Conclusion 5 is also not stated directly in Thomson’s paper, but follows directly from the premises that are stated in her paper.
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 her article Thomson starts off by giving antiabortionists the benefit of the doubt that fetuses are human persons. She adds that all persons have the right to life and that it is wrong to kill any person. Also she states that someone?s right to life is stronger than another person?s autonomy and that the only conflict with a fetuses right to life is a mother?s right to autonomy. Thus the premises make abortion impermissible. Then Thomson precedes to attacks the premise that one?s right to autonomy can be more important to another?s right to life in certain situations. She uses quite an imaginative story to display her point of view. Basically there is a hypothetical situation in which a very famous violinist is dying. Apparently the only way for the violinist to survive is to be ?plugged? into a particular woman, in which he could use her kidneys to continue living. The catch is that the Society of Music Lovers kidnapped this woman in the middle of the night in order to obtain the use of her kidneys. She then woke up and found herself connected to an unconscious violinist. This obviously very closely resembles an unwanted pregnancy. It is assumed that the woman unplugging herself is permissible even though it would kill the violinist. Leading to her point of person?s right to life is not always stronger than another person?s right to have control over their own body. She then reconstructs the initial argument to state that it is morally impermissible to abort a fetus if it has the right to life and has the right to the mother?s body. The fetus has the right to life but only has the right to a ...
Famous author Dr. Seuss states that a “person is a person no matter how small.”
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”.
“On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” by Mary Anne Warren is an in depth analysis of what, in Warren’s opinion, it is exactly that defines a person and human being, the moral community, fetal development and the right to life, potential personhood and the right to life, and infanticide. Warren believes that emotion and morality should be entirely separate, and that abortion should be legal for all women, as denial would be stripping women of basic human rights, the rights that a woman holds over an unborn fetus. I personally agree with her arguments on these topics as I agree that women should be allowed to have abortions on their own terms, without subjection of authority or society telling her what she can and cannot do, as well as I agree for the most part on her view of what a person is, potential personhood not outweighing the choice of abortion, and her reasoning on what defines a person of the moral community.
By critically examining Thomson’s (1971) three analogies; the Violinist, the Henry Fonda analogy and the People Seeds analogy, all three analogies fail to show that it is not unjust to deny the foetus the right to the mother’s body. Therefore, the foetus has a right to not be killed unjustly and have the use of the mother’s womb.
Thomson concludes that there are no cases where the person pregnant does not have the right to chose an abortion. Thomson considers the right to life of the pregnant person by presenting the case of a pregnant person dying as a result from 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 right to life of the fetus is not the same as the pregnant person having to die, so as not to infringe on the right of the fetus. In the case of the violinist, their necessity for your body for life is not the same as their right over the use of your body. Thomson argues that having the right to life is not equal to having the right to use the body of another person. They argue that this is also the case, even if the the pregnant person knowingly participated in intercourse and knew of the possibility of pregnancy. In this case it would seem that abortion would not be permissible since the pregnancy was not by force. However, we are reverted back to the case of rape. If a fetus conceived voluntarily has the right not to be aborted due to how it was conceived, then the fetus conceived from rape should also have that same right. Instead of creating a distinction of cases where the fetus has a right to use the body of a pregnant person, Thomson instead makes a distinction of when abortion would be morally