In the case of abortion, Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible in most cases; she does this by using two hypothetical examples. The first example being a violinist and the second example being human seeds. In this paper, I will reiterate the hypothetical analysis by Thomson, state reasons for this argument being the most plausible, and I will discuss the strongest objection to the arguments given by Thomson.
The accepted premise for Thomson’s arguments is that a fetus is a person, and even without accepting the premise, there are still valid reasons to abortions being morally permissible. In the violinist case, a person who has perfectly functioning kidneys is kidnapped and hooked up to a machine to save a violinist who is dying
…show more content…
from kidney failure. Conjoining the two parties with a machine creates a lifeline between the two parties. The person with healthy kidneys keeps the violinist alive because the violinist prospers on the healthy kidneys. An added condition, the person must remain on the machine for nine months to ensure that the violinist can survive; however, in this case, the person with the perfectly functioning kidneys does not give consent to use his or her body and is forced to comply because he or she was abducted. The person possesses the option of terminating the operation by retracting from the machine, but Thomson states that this is morally permissible since the person provided no consent. With this analogy, Thomson identifies abortions in cases of rape. The nine month span correlates to the amount of time a female is pregnant with a soon-to-be child and the unconsented operation procedure, the attachment to the machine, relates to the rape of a woman who ends up pregnant as an aftermath of the incident. I agree with Thomson; it is not morally impermissible that the person with good kidneys pulls the plug and ends the connection he/she has with the violinist in this case. In this case, the person cannot choose his own fate, similar to a female who cannot choose whether or not to become pregnant after a rape incident. If the person does not give his or her consent, then there lacks a moral obligation toward the responsibility of the child. Even though a fetus relies on the body of the carrier to survive, in cases of rape, it was not a choice; the fetus just happened to be conceived due to an undesired circumstance. Suppose Tom decides to murder John and undergoes remorse shortly after. He takes the weapon used, a gun, and hides it in Steve’s car. Realizing that he has the weapon, Steve decides to return the gun to Tom and Steve tells Tom to take responsibility for his actions. Is Steve at fault here? The answer is no. Since Steve did not consent to keeping the gun, he does not have to abide by Tom’s wishes. Tom enforced his will onto Steve, which does not make it morally impermissible to refuse the obligation. Although the violinist analogy seems extreme since the person was kidnapped and connected to a life-support machine, it gets the point across that the person did not give consent for the violinist to use his body as a support method for survival; just as a woman victimized of rape does not give consent to sex. Therefore, in both cases, it is not the choice of either person to support someone else. Since the analogy correlates to the case of rape and the accepted premise is not having consent to abuse a person’s bodily autonomy are stated within each of the cases, the case works. Therefore, abortion is morally acceptable in cases of rape. The next argument Thomson offers is that of people-seeds.
In this argument, seeds are contained within the pollen outside and the seeds can root into the carpets and floors to grow into human beings. The person living in this environment wants to have her windows open because she needs fresh air in her house; however, she runs the risk of getting the people-seeds inside the house. Even with the knowledge that the people seeds can get inside the house and potentially grow as people, she still wants to open the windows; instead of simply opening the windows, she puts a mesh screen that is supposed to block the seeds from entering into the house. If the seeds are being blocked, then she can live with the windows open in peace, but there is also a miniscule percentage that the mesh will not work and the people-seeds will enter into the house, implant, and grow into people. In the end of the scenario given by Thomson, the mesh does not completely block the people-seeds and they are able to enter through the door and grow into people. The person destroys the people seeds since she does not want to have them grow in her house in the first place. According to Thomson, it is morally permissible to destroy the people seeds because the person took every possible alternative used to avoid having the seeds flourish in the house. This case relates to cases where two people consent to intercourse and use contraception, but the contraception fails. Although this argument would make for a great case arguing for the morally permissibility of abortion, it does not work. The major flaw is the flaw of the survivability of a single human being. For example, with the argument posed by Thomson, the person decides to open a window. A human cannot survive without clean air, therefore, the windows/door of the house need to be open at some point in time, thus making the inevitable happen, which is allowing the people seeds to come into the house. In the real case it relates to, the two
people are consenting to sexual intercourse, but the contraception fails. A single human being does not need to have intercourse to survive. The choice is being made simply for his or her desire to engage in sexual intercourse. Since one scenario has a requirement to live in having air to survive, while the other one is a personal choice for a human being (although if no human beings ever had sexual intercourse, the human race would be extinct), the scenario does not work. If the scenario was altered to allow the factor of life to happen without the necessity of opening windows, for example, the person in the house wanted plants, but the plants had a minuscule chance of having a people-seed, then the analogy would work with the statement. This analogy although a powerful standpoint has a logical fallacy. A strong objection to Thomson’s argument relies on the prima facie right that a fetus has on a woman’s body (p 28 paragraph 3). In the violinist case, the violinist is not dependent on any human being to survive prior to having failed kidneys, while a fetus is a person that is naturally dependent on the mother’s body to survive. Since it cannot survive without its mother, it is morally impermissible to kill the fetus because the mother then has the duty to care for the child since it is biologically dependent upon its mother. This premise is true; the case with the violinist has the flaw that the violinist survived without the kidnapped person through a majority of his or her lifetime. Therefore, not all of the scenarios are equal in the case for the violinist vs the case of rape. If the fetus did not have a dependency, then the case would be a stronger standpoint for the argument of abortion. Even with the accepted premise of the fetus relying on the female’s body, the objection does not stand for Thomson’s cases. Using the objection of dependency with the first case of lack of consent, Thomson argues moral permissibility lies within the person who gives consent. The dependency of the violinist along with the fetus is irrelevant. Dependency becomes unimportant; the violinist is dependent just like the fetus would be, but it does not increase moral obligation. The option to say no still remains. Another fault within the prima facie case is the desire to have the fetus. It is clear that in the people-seeds case the person did not want the people-seeds invading the house, while it is clear that two people do not want to conceive a child because they are using contraception. Since the two persons attempt to avoid the conception, the liability fades away. The risk was miniscule enough to overlook the odds and it just happened that the chances of conceiving had a success, but it does not grant obligation to the people because they decided to avoid the situation. To say that people will not take risks is absurd, and not taking risks will destroy the autonomy people have to fulfill their own desires, so people should be expected to take risks.
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
In other words, Thomson tries to make the connection that there are three other morally relevant factors involved in abortion in certain cases: the fetus depends on the mother’s body for survival, the mother has not consented to the use of her body and pregnancies are demanding on the body and limit what mothers can do. Hence, the violinist has a kidney condition, which he can only survive if he is attached to our body, we are kidnapped and attached to the violinist without consent and we have to lie in bed for nine months. Thus Thomson's reasoning is it that a person may now permissibly unplug them self from the violinist even though this will cause his death. The right to life, Thomson says, does not demand the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of the use of your body to which he has no ri...
Before Thomson addresses “The Violinist” case, she concedes the point that a fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life. Now, Thomson continues by stating that a woman’s right to her body outweighs the fetus’s right to life. To demonstrate her position, Thomson utilizes a “thought experiment” involving a famous violinist. Suppose you wake up one morning and are attached to an unconscious violinist, one that is respected
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
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 has a strong role in whether an abortion is okay. Thomson continuously uses the story of a violinist to get the reader to understand her point of view.
In this paper I will discuss Don Marquis’s essay “Why Abortion is Immoral” and Judith Jarvis Thomson’s objections to Marquis’ argument against abortion.
The topic of my paper is abortion. In Judith Jarvis Thomson's paper, “A Defense of Abortion,” she presented a typical anti-abortion argument and tried to prove it false. I believe there is good reason to agree that the argument is sound and Thompson's criticisms of it are false.
In Judith Jarvis Thompson’s article “A Defense of Abortion” she explores the different arguments against abortion presented by Pro –Life activists, and then attempts to refute these notions using different analogies or made up “for instances” to help argue her point that women do have the right to get an abortion. She explains why abortion is morally permissible using different circumstances of becoming pregnant, such as rape or unplanned pregnancy.
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.
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”.
Abortion is an important and rather popular topic in the philosophical world. On one side of the argument, pro choice, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is permissible because the pregnancy might not have been voluntary or the mother’s life is at risk if she continues on with the pregnancy. On the opposing side of the argument, Don Marquis argues that abortion is wrong because it takes away all the potential things a fetus could value in their future life. In this paper, I will argue against Don Marquis view of abortion. I will begin by explaining that Marquis does not take into consideration the effect the pregnancy may have on the mother, and I will talk about how Thomson does take the mother into consideration. Next, I will criticize
Alternatively, one might think that having the right to life means that one has the right not to be killed. Again, though, Thomson thinks that the violinist case shows this to be false; surely one can unplug oneself from the violinist, even though doing so kills him. Pathos were included when she provided the example of the violinist. If one attempts to alter the definition by suggesting instead that having the right to life means having the right not to be killed unjustly, then one has done little to advance the debate on abortion. She states that the third party don’t have the right to have the choice of killing the person. She went with the logos and pathos way when she was trying to explain what was going to happen. It shows how Thompson agrees with how the choice of life is not up to the third party or anybody else. With pathos and logos, Thomson further argues that even if women are partially being usually responsible for the presence of the fetus, because it is a voluntarily by engaging in intercourse with the full knowledge that pregnancy might result, it does not thereby follow that they bear a special moral responsibility toward
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.
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