Comparing Abortion 'And' An Almost Absolute Value In History

The topic of abortion has become a hotly politicized albeit deeply personal decision in the last few decades. Two articles, “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thompson and “An Almost Absolute Value in History” by John T. Noonan, Jr. help to give an ethical face to the choice in support and opposition to abortion, respectively. Thomson focuses on the rights of the mother in choosing abortion as a form self-defense while conversely Noonan defends the human rights of a fetus. However, each author further clarifies their arguments with the use of imagery and emotion.
In Thomson’s article, her primary argument in defense of abortion is that women have the right to life and abortion itself serves as a form of self-defense for women whose life is being harmed. It is important to note that Thomson’s concept of ‘a life in harm’ refers not necessarily to the physiological sense of harm, but also the sense that the mother’s livelihood and wellbeing might be in danger.

Thomson reinforces her argument by introducing the concept of rights in regards to the mother. She frequently alludes to a scenario in which an individual has been forced to share their kidney functions with a violinist from varying periods of time, ranging from a short time to a lifetime, with varying consequences. The consequences can range from a minor inconvenience to a lifetime of hardship and burden. She uses this allegory to allude to unplanned and to the burden that can come to women who find themselves in a situation where continuing a pregnancy may impact their lives.
Thomson uses the scenario, along with alluding to the parable of ‘The Good Samaritan’ to introduce that while keeping a child in an unfavorable situation (i.e. rape, hardship) is what one ought to do; they have the right not to do it. Alternatively she also notes that the fetus does not have the right to the mother. Thomson’s use of imagery throughout her argument allows the reader to understand the situation in terms that are more accessible and not solely focus on unwanted pregnancy.
Ultimately, one of Thomson’s strongest unifying points is [that] “nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive.“ (Thompson) This one passage sums up the case for how she views abortion as a form of self-defense for women.
On the dissenting argument of abortion, Noonan argues that abortion is wrong on the basis that a the denial of humanity does not justify abortion He manages to single out the ideas of “viability,” “experience,” “feeling,” “senses” and “communication.” Noonan uses these criteria to reinforce the humanity of a fetus despite many people denying these measures of humanity to a fetus in order to justify the abortive act.
Noonan goes through each of the aforementioned criteria in order to present an argument that each measure cannot deny that a fetus is human.

In the case of ‘viability,’ he manages to link it dependency and how it cannot be a single measure since even after a fetus is considered ‘viable,’ it is still dependent upon the mother. Continuing, he argues that many in favor of abortion deny humanity on the basis of ‘experience,’ meaning that since a fetus has not experienced human life that it cannot be considered human. Noonan reject this by that implying that lack of experience in life should not be a cause for denying humanity.
Furthermore, the themes of ‘feeling,’ ‘senses’ and ‘communication,’ are somewhat related to the last concept of ‘experience.’ These qualities are not necessarily measured in quantitative measures but rather qualitative. From Noonan’s perspectives the lack of human emotions, interpersonal communication and tangibility outside of the womb are not reasons to deny humanity to the

fetus.
While, Thomson used imagery throughout her piece, Noonan does not do so. Rather, he manages to use a few historical analogies to the situation. He likens this to historical decision by groups to deny humanity to differing groups. In particular he singles out the Romans denial of basic human rights to slaves in order to justify their actions in keeping those individuals enslaved and the Communist Chinese considering landlords non-people in order to consider them enemies.
Noonan, manages