Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Thomson defense of abortion critique
Thomson's argument on abortion
Thomson's argument on abortion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Thomson defense of abortion critique
Abortion is a complex social and moral issue that remains unresolved in today’s society. It is continuously changing and renewing under new influences presented by different individuals as well as the global civilization as a whole. Arguments from both sides are often extremely dogmatic and defensive, presenting merely from one perspective. However, the common argument revolves closely on what the true definition of a person or a human being is and its relations to whether a fetus is a human being or not from the moment of conception. This is examined from a liberal point of view by Thomson (Thomson, 1971, p. 47-66), who explains that abortion can be justified in a wide range of cases and challenges the notion that it is morally impermissible. Anti-abortionists have taken an opposite stance and claimed that Thomson’s argument is exaggerated and patently false. In this paper, I will briefly examine Thomson’s perception of abortion and explain how the analogies demonstrated in her paper assist in supporting her view on legal abortion as well as why I agree with Thomson on some parts of her argumentation.
In “A defense of abortion” (Thomson, 1971, p. 47-66), instead of engaging in the usual debate about the moral status, Thomson grants ‘for sake of argument’ (Thomson, 1971, p. 48) that a human embryo is a person as she believes that personhood does not have any relations with the permissibility of abortion. In investigating this, Thomson attempts to define the rights of a woman in regards to her autonomy in controlling what happens to her body in comparison to the right to life of a fetus. The first thought experiment proposes a scenario involving an innocent person being kidnapped and attached to a sick violinist. In order to sav...
... middle of paper ...
...on. I believe that abortion is not always morally impermissible as we will never be able to achieve an absolute, neutral perspective of whether abortion is wrong or right. In extreme cases where the pregnancy interferes with the mother’s life such as life threatening situations, it is permissible to abort the pregnancy. It is not abortion as a whole that is ‘wrong’. Instead, it is the society’s attitude towards it. Individuals who use abortion, as a tool of convenience or choice is not morally permissible, as the fetus should be considered to have a right to life.
In conclusion, Thomson has used a very interesting and comprehensive way to present different situations involving abortion. The ‘violinist experiment’ focuses on whether abortion is morally impermissible as a whole while other thought experiments provide stimulating scenarios from other point of views.
In this essay, I will hold that the strongest argument in defence of abortion was provided by Judith Jarvis Thompson. She argued that abortion is still morally permissible, regardless if one accepts the premise that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. In what follows, I agree that abortion is permissible in the ‘extreme case’ whereby the woman’s life is threatened by the foetus. Furthermore, I agree that abortion is permissible to prevent future pain and suffering to the child. However, I do not agree that the ‘violinist’ analogy is reliable when attempting to defend abortion involving involuntary conception cases such as rape, whereby the foetus does not threaten the woman’s health. To achieve this, I will highlight the distinction
Caplan, A., & Arp, R. (2014). The deliberately induced abortion of a human pregnancy is not justifiable. Contemporary debates in bioethics (pp. 122). Oxford, West Sussex: Wiley.
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.
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.
Anderson brings up point after point to support his opinion on pro-choice abortion. Anderson writes about how the government should have no say in a woman’s decision to abort even if she is past the first trimester: “Pregnancy and motherhood affect every aspect of a woman’s life - public and private, emotional and physical - and Roe v. Wade confirmed that it was an invasion of privacy for the government to step in and make reproductive decisions on a woman’s behalf” (Anderson, 2015). Anderson explains how he believes a woman who decides to have an abortion does it because it will negatively affect their life in a way that will be changed forever. The article goes on to explain some reasons why women choose to have abortions. To back up his
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 the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous 'violinist' argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's 'violinist' argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not make abortion permissible.
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”.
No doubt the mother has a right to decide what happens in and to her body. But surely a person’s right to life is stronger than the mother’s right to decide what shall happen to her body, and so outweighs it. So the foetus may not be killed and an abortion may not be performed (Thomson, 1971) In response to this argument, Thomson uses her Violinist analogy. You have been kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers, and upon waking have found that your circulatory system has been plugged into a famous violinist who is suffering from kidney failure.
The overall thesis that Thomson presents in “A Defence of Abortion”, is that abortion is permissible no matter the personhood status of the fetus. Their argument addresses various aspects of the issue: the rights of the fetus, the person pregnant with the fetus, how those rights interact with each other, third parties and moral obligation. They claim that the rights of a fetus are not any more important than the rights of the person pregnant. However, they also address cases where there is a sense of moral obligation not to have an abortion. Their discussion about third party participation can be used for other types of third party participation.
Abortion has so many different view points on the topic, some positive some negative. Roe verse Wade played a huge part in the decision making process on abortion. Everyone has their own opinions about abortion but the opinion concerning when life begins had a significant effect on a person’s views concerning whether they are for or against abortion. The studies of long term effects from abortion on women are traumatic and devastating. They can include mental, physical, and emotional problems after an abortion.
According to Judith Thomson in her book “A Defense of Abortion”, a human embryo is a person who has a right to life. But, just because the human fetus has the right to life does not mean that the mother will be forced to carry it (Thomson, 48). Naturally, abortion may be seen as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy before the fetal viability. Though people have understood this, the topic of abortion has remained a controversial issue in the world. Individuals are divided into “Pro-choice” and “Pro-life” debaters depending on their opinion on the morality of the action. "Pro-life," the non-consequentialist side, is the belief that abortion is wrong, generally because it equates to killing. "Pro-choice," the consequentialist view, however,
“Is abortion moral or immoral?” We yet have not acquired an answer to this question. Infer by that, we defend about the nature and the moral status of the fetus. In the other word, should we or should we not? Don Marquis as well as Bonnie Steinbock embraces with the argument of their own, which point out the morality of abortion.