Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Thomsons a defence of abortion essay
Thomsons a defence of abortion essay
Thomson's abortion essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Thomsons a defence of abortion essay
Thomson argue that a pregnant woman still has the right to abortion even if the fetus is a person from conception. He argues this by giving the analogy of someone who is kidnapped and forced to serve as a life support system for a violinist without the person’s consent. I feel this analogy is not comparable to having an abortion because conception and pregnancy are foreseeable consequences of even careful sex and waking up and being someone’s life support is not a foreseeable outcome. By causing children to be made, parents also cause them to need support; it's a package deal. When parents mutually agree to have sex they are risking the chance to becoming pregnant. The parents are not enslaved they've volunteered. This may put the needs of a parent and child in conflict, but it creates no clash of rights between them. This is because parents be obligated their children support.
Thomson uses an analogy to get her point of why a woman has the moral right to an abortion. One morning you wake up and find out you are connected to an unconscious famous violinist. The famous violinist has a fatal kidney disease and the only way he is going to survive is if he “plugged” into someone else’s circulatory system. The Society of Music Lovers found out that you are the only one with the right blood type and kidnapped you, resulting in the situation you are in. When the violinist is plugged into you, your kidneys are extracting the poison from his blood. The doctor now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he ...
... middle of paper ...
...ying to survive. Going back to Thomson's analogy, the stranger did nothing to cause the violinist to have kidney failure. The stranger did nothing to cause himself to be captured and plugged in. The child is also like the captive person, in which she too, is in the situation involuntarily. To conceive and then abort one's child is to turn conception into a situation that he or she has any say in and will ultimately lead to their death.
Overall Thomson’s violinist analogy supports a woman’s moral right to abortion, but if you dig deeper, the two do not have much in common and are not really relatable. I think the argument is defective and actually proves that a woman does not have the right to kill her fetus by abortion because the fetus did not choose to be conceived and is considered a human being, therefore the fetus has rights just as any other human being does.
According to Thomson, unjust killing comes from the result of depriving someone from a right that they own. In the Henry Fonda case, Fonda was given the magical ability to cure a sickness with just one touch over a fevered brow. So, Fonda has the right to volunteer in touching the fevered brow, but is not obligated to do so because the sick person does not own the right of Henry Fonda’s hand. This analogy is very significant in comparison to Thomson’s argument on justified abortion because it shows that the mother should not be held to any constraints because she has the freedom to her body. Given the fact that the mother has the authority to make any decisions she wants; abortion will always be justified because she is not obligated to give
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
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.
Thomson’s main idea is to show why Pro-Life Activists are wrong in their beliefs. She also wants to show that even if the fetus inside a women’s body had the right to life (as argued by Pro – Lifers), this right does not entail the fetus to have whatever it needs to survive – including usage of the woman’s body to stay alive.
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 ...
Thomson recognizes that this thought experiment has a very limited application – specifically to those instances where a pregnancy is the result of coercion or violence. In the sec...
Abortions have been performed for thousands of years. In the 1800s abortions began to be outlawed. The reasons for anti-abortion laws varied for each state. Some people did not want the world to be dominated by newly arrived immigrants. Abortion in the 1800s were very unsafe due to the fact that the doctors had a limited educations and hospitals were not common. The outlawing of abortions from 1880 to 1973 led to many woman attempting illgeal abortions. (add author). Almost two hundred women died from attempting illegal abortions in 1965. Between two hundred thousand and one million illegal abortions were given each year. In states where local laws restrict the availability of abortion, women tend to have the lowest level of education and income. Additionally, in those states, less money goes toawrds education, welfare, fostercare programs, and adoption services. (Anderson, 5).
...e open to all women at any point of pregnancy, and that the woman reserves the right as a fully conscious member of the moral community to choose to carry the child or not. She argues that fetuses are not persons or members of the moral community because they don’t fulfill the five qualities of personhood she has fashioned. Warren’s arguments are valid, mostly sound, and cover just about all aspects of the overall topic. However much she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent. Warren rejects emotional appeal in a very Vulcan like manner; devout to reason and logic and in doing so has created a well-written paper based solely on this rational mindset.
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
Smith was debating whether or not to have an abortion, Marquis will argue that she should not have an abortion because the fetus that is inside of her, has a soul. He believes that the fetus will soon look like a human and will soon have human-like future just like anybody else. However, Thomson’s argument is the complete opposite of Marquis because she believes that the baby is a developing inside of her will soon become a human as well. But, the different is that Mrs. Smith did not want to have the baby in the first place as she is already struggling to make ends meet. Which means that she did not give the fetus permission for it to develop inside of her body. The fetus should not be using her body without her consent because it is her body. She also argues that since Mrs. Smith was using all the precautions needed to avoid the pregnancy, she should still be given the chance to have an abortion because the contraceptives must have failed, which was something that was out of her
In A Defense of Abortion, Thomson begins by establishing that while she does not believe a fetus is a person, for the sake of her argument she will permit the premise that a fetus is a person (Thomson 47). Thomson then states that while a fetus has a right to life, the mother also has a right to decide what happens in and to her body and that these two premises are self-evident (Thomson 50). She then states that in the case of abortion, surely the fetus’s right to life outweighs the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. For those who agree with that conclusion, Thomson offers the following thought
Volume 1. She declares that abortion should be a provided choice because the mother has a right to her own body. She also believes that abortion should be morally permissible due to instances in which the future mother is placed under force and is unable to control the production of a child. Lastly, she further defends her position by asserting that a woman may be at risk of having a child when having sex due to defective contraceptives. After analyzing Thomson’s argument, this document will examine the ways in which her argument is specious and how she follows feminist
There are times where a fetus is the product of unprotected and forced intercourse between the mother and another individual. Thompson elaborates this concept in her people seed example, imagining a world where seeds traveled the air and when they land they grow into people. If a woman has a people seed enter her home, even though she did not want the seed to enter her home and did what she could to keep it out, should she be responsible to let the seed grow and raise the person? The answer is no because the woman did not consent for the seed to enter the home it doesn’t have rights to, after all, it is the woman’s home. Applying this idea to the topic of abortion, to abort a fetus is morally permissible because the woman did not consent the fetus to enter her body and use her for life support. Adding on a Utilitarian methodology to the idea of consent, the woman would experience an extreme amount of secure pleasure knowing her body is her own to control, rather than having the responsibility to let the uninvited fetus to use her for life