Judith Jarvis Thomson

This paper aims to explore Judith Jarvis Thomson’s arguments mostly for abortion in her article “Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion”, from Philosophy & Public Affairs

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

ethics. The paper will also explore another author who has argued against Thomson’s arguments: Don Marquis.
Judith Jarvis Thomson believes that the act of abortion is morally right for a variety of reasons. Her first defense is that the mother has a right to her own body. She argues that there are instances in which the future mother is placed under force and is unable to control the production of a child. Lastly, she writes that the woman may have been placed under a risk in which she is in a situation in which the child has been conceived due to faulty contraceptives. In her first argument, she argues that the mother has the right to her reproductive freedom. To start her essay, she begins with a standard argument against abortion; “every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life” (Thomson). However, she also brings to light that a mother has the right to her own body, so, the question is what is the stronger right, the mother’s right to her body, or, the child’s right to live? Thomson then goes to respond that those who do not defend abortion would reason that the fetus’ right to live is stronger. However, that is not always a definite statement, especially with both the mother and child being innocent. This ultimately claims that the abortion may not be performed under the assumption that the right to life is not always absolute.
In Judith Jarvis Thomson’s second argument, she reasons that there are instances in which the future mother is placed under force and is unable to control the production of a child. One main example of these types of situations is called rape or a strained sexual assault. She creates an analogy to this form of abuse. In this, a person is kidnapped and awoken only to discover that they have been attached to a famous Violinist’s kidneys for nine months because the person is the only person whom can allow the violinist his, or her, life (Thomson). In this comparison, the mother is the person being kidnapped, and the violinist is the fetus. She is entitling the reader to make the assumption that the person being kidnapped should have the right to be unplugged because he, or she, has been kidnapped and taken from their own free will. Thomson even declares the following: “I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago” (Thomson). She continues to debate by stating that the mother did not “volunteer” to have a child and that the mother would have to spend “nine months of her pregnancy in bed” (Thomson). She then taunts opposers by stating that some would still be against abortion if the mother would be forced to spend her pregnancy in bed for “nine years” or the “rest of the mother’s life” (Thomson).
Thomson also argues the woman may have been placed under a risk in which she is in a situation in which the child has been conceived due to faulty contraceptives as a way to prove that abortion is an acceptable procedure. Thomson supports her case by creating an analogy between someone opening their window and a burglar sneaking in: “If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars” (Thomson). She is comparing the fetus to the burglar and the mother to the person who opens their window. She then further supports her argument by recreating the scenario, but, this time, there are bars on the windows, which have a defect. This is her case for saying that faulty contraceptives can still lead to unjust, unwanted pregnancies. Thomson's perspective on abortion is that the procedure is morally correct, based upon the reasoning provided.
Thomson’s view towards the subject of abortion follows the layout of the feminist moral theory. This is given as she believes that the mother should have the right to control her own body, which follows the second wave of feminist ethics. The feminist moral theory follows the premise of gender equality and is said to have three to four major waves. The second wave lasted from around the 1960’s to the 1980’s, according to Caroline Dorey-Stein, from the website, progressive women’s leadership (Dorey-Stein). During this section in time, feminism was “focused on the workplace, sexuality, family and reproductive rights” (Dorey-Stein), which included the rejection of monogamy and a greater increase in support for abortion. Thomson seems to imply that she subscribes to feminist ethics due to the fact that she believes that abortion leads to the happiness of the mother in guaranteeing a portion of her reproductive rights.
Judith Jarvis Thomson’s views on abortion are wrong for numerous reasons.

One criticism is shown through the utilitarian perspective on the thought experiment of the famous violinist. Thomson wants the reader to believe that being hooked to the machine is morally unjust. She says her concerns by acknowledging that the situation is “outrageous” and that there is something “wrong with that plausible-sounding argument” (Thomson). However, to a utilitarian, it would make more sense to stay connected to the violinist because it would allow him/her to live and make all the members of the “Society of Music Lovers” full of content. However, if one were to unplug themselves, it would only be pleasurable for themselves. This would still be true under the circumstance that one was kidnapped and if one were to be kept in a hospital bed for nine months. Another criticism of Thomson’s view is that if she believes that no one has the moral obligation to treat others in a special manner, essentially being ‘unselfish’, then people can treat anyone as strangers. She reasons that no one has the moral obligation to treat nicely by using her two boys and chocolate comparison: There are two brothers. A box of chocolates is given to the older boy. He eats the box all by himself while “his small brother watching enviously” (Thomson). She then makes the argument that the boy is not being unjust because he does not have a moral obligation to share. However, the statement on morality may seem crude.

For example, the declaration would imply that no one should do anything as simple has opening the door for a pregnant woman, or helping someone pick up fallen objects. To go further, this is also suggesting that one should not care for their family, or anyone who has cared for them, in a dire situation, because one does not have the moral obligation to. For example, if one’s mother or anyone that has cared for them, has a fatal kidney disease, one would donate their organ. However, according to Thomson, one would not be morally obliged to because she took care of them out of the kindness of her heart, not for anything in return. The kidney belongs to them and can keep it. Thomson’s view on abortion could also be criticized because, according to the author of “Response to Judith Jarvis Thomson’s A Defense for Abortion”, Thomson ignores family law. Since Thomson creates the assumption that the fetus is a human, then the parents have a “responsibility for their unborn children”. An article College Term Papers asserts that according to legal scholars Dennis J. Horan and Burke J. Balche, "All 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have child abuse and neglect statutes which provide for the protection of a child who does not receive needed medical care." They further claim that "a review of cases makes it clear that these statutes are properly applied to secure emergency medical treatment and sustenance (food or water, whether given orally or through intravenous or nasogastic tube) for children when parents, with or without the acquiescence of physicians, refuse to provide it" (College Term Papers). This would mean that once a fetus is aborted, then the laws were broken, so, abortion would not be (Marquis) legally acceptable. Due to these reasons, Judith Jarvis Thomson’s views on abortion is necessarily unreasonable.
Other critics reject Judith Jarvis Thomson’s reasoning on abortion that comes about in her article. Don Marquis was, according to John Batteiger, “a celebrated New York newspaper columnist and humorist in the early decades of the last century” (Batteiger). In his article, Why Abortion is Immoral, he suggests that Judith Jarvis Thomson is mistaken because of her stance on the scenario that sometimes a woman’s right to her body overthrows the fetus’ right to live. On one hand, Thomson makes the argument that the right to live is not an absolute right; she reasons this by creating her violinist analogy. On the other hand, Marquis advocates that killing is one of the highest offenses. He believes that abortion is essentially identical to murder as he declares the following:
What primarily makes killing wrong is neither its effect on the murderer nor its effect on the victim’s friends and relatives, but its effect on the victim.

The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted one’s future (Marquis 4).

He judges that the fetus would be considered the victim and by completing an abortion, one would be depriving it of its possibilities. He believes that right to life is the most important right one can have and to take it away would be one of the most immoral acts one can perform. So given Don Marquis’ argument, Judith Jarvis Thomson’s argument seems to be feeble because of her reasoning, which promotes that the right to live is not absolute, is

incorrect.
In conclusion, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues in favor of the use of abortion as a medical procedure. This is for a variety of reasons including that the mother has a right to her own body. To follow, should the mother be placed in a position of force and is unable to control the production of a child, abortion should be moral. Finally, she fights for her case by stating that the woman may have been at risk to having a child when having sex due to defective contraceptives. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines abortion as “a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus” (Merriam-Webster). This paper disagrees with Judith Jarvis Thomson’s findings largely because of her use of her misleading violinist analogy. To follow, Thomson’s principle that no one has the obligation to treat other nicely is immoral because it would mean that one does not have to care for people who have cared for them. Lastly, she fails to follow family law when making her statements.