More handpicked essays just for you.
Thomson defense of abortion main argument
Thomson defense of abortion main argument
Thomson defense of abortion main argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Both Thomson and Warren have permissive views on the abortion. Thomson claims that the abortion is morally permissible in a very early stage of the pregnancy because an unborn fetus is not a person early on the pregnancy. Especially, in the case of pregnant due to rape, she is inclined to allow the abortion. According to Warren, she insists that the abortion is permissible if an unwanted or defective infant is born into a society that cannot afford to raise a child (Timmons, 2014, p. 437). She states that a woman’s rights to freedom, happiness, and self-determination are violated due to an unwanted pregnancy (Timmons, 2014, p. 441).
Warren is in a stronger position than Thomson with respect to the permissibility of abortion. They have different
perspectives in terms of the unborn person with a right to life. Thomson indicates that the fetus is not entitled to use the mother’s body even if the pregnancy is the result of voluntary act. She states that the fetus is dependent on the mother’s body in order to stay alive, but the fetus has no right to be provided the mother’s body (Timmons, 2014, p. 441). On the other hand, Warren claims that the fetus is entitled to use the mother’s body with a right to life. She mentions that the fetus does not have full moral rights based upon the six criteria for moral personhood, because the fetus is not yet a person who does not possess any concepts of humanity (Timmons, 2014, p. 432).
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
Thomas begins her argument by asking the reader to imagine a situation in which a famous violinist will die unless he is connected to them in order to gain use of your kidneys. In this scenario, the Society of Music Lovers for this task has also kidnapped them against their will. Because after checking all the medical documents, they were the perfect match for the operation. While they were unconscious, the violinist's circulatory system was "plugged into them, so that their kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as their own". Now they have two choices, either unplug themselves from the violinist, which results in his death; or wait nine months until he is recovered and can be unplugged safely. Thomson likens the plight of the reader's well-being and the violinist to that of a child conceived during a rape and its mother.
Thomson notes that this example shatters the argument that abortion should not be permissible. Her example shows that it is
In her essay, “A Defense of Abortion”, Judith Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible in most cases even when the fetus is considered a person. She does this by claiming that the right to bodily autonomy supersedes the right to life in almost every case and that the intention of the mother is important in defining when an abortion is permissible. Through multiple thought experiments she shows that the Western perspective often places more importance on the right to autonomy than the right to life even though it is claimed otherwise, and that if a mother does not intend to become pregnant she is not morally obligated to carry the fetus to term in most cases. I will examine these thought experiments and their implications in Thomson’s argument, present a rebuttal and speculate on her response.
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
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.
middle of paper ... ... To speak plainly, the issue of abortion is a slippery slope of morality. While siding with the Pro-Choice side myself, it felt necessary to examine Warren’s opinion so as to give constructive criticism and potentially help strengthen her argument for the future. Through Warren’s lack of sound consideration for what constitutes a personhood and numerous issues regarding potential personhood, it is clear that the conversation still has a long way to go.
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.
I feel that Thomson?s argument was easily refuted although it was very imaginative and clever. It doesn?t seem that her idea of abortion only being wrong in the case of voluntary pregnancy will hold water too long. In my personal opinion I feel that abortion is generally wrong. I think that if the woman became pregnant through consensual sex, even if she did not want to have a child, abortion is wrong regardless of the contraceptive precautions that were exercised. In the terribly unfortunate case of rape I feel it is more than understandable for the woman to want to abort the fetus. Seeing how the fetus had no control over the situation it seems that they should be given the chance at life. Although it is very unfortunate for the woman to have to be in such a situation I think it would be in the best interest for everyone to have the child. Maybe someday the unwanted child could make a contribution to all of mankind. The one situation that is very complicated to me is in the case of the mother?s life depending on the fetus being alive. I feel that every individual situation should carefully studied while considering all possible outcomes.
In A Defense of Abortion (Cahn and Markie), Judith Thomson presents an argument that abortion can be morally permissible even if the fetus is considered to be a person. Her primary reason for presenting an argument of this nature is that the abortion argument at the time had effectively come to a standstill. The typical anti-abortion argument was based on the idea that a fetus is a person and since killing a person is wrong, abortion is wrong. The pro-abortion adopts the opposite view: namely, that a fetus is not a person and is thus not entitled to the rights of people and so killing it couldn’t possibly be wrong.
...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.
Before I begin to discuss Marry Ann Warrens’ article, “Abortion is Morally Permissible”, I wish to define the different views of abortion. The first view of abortion is a called, “Ultra-Conservative”, which state regardless of the reason, having an abortion is immoral. This, as I stated in my introductory paragraph, is my personal view of abortion.
How is it decided on who lives? The opposing side says no abortion because that’s killing a person, whereas you can do nothing and let the mother’s death take its toll. Thomson creates a similar scenario of a growing child in a very small house. The mother will be crushed if she does nothing or she can act out in self-defense to protect herself. She claims that the mother shouldn’t have to be forced to wait there and be crushed, she can do something about it, just as with a life- threatening pregnancy. Then she argues that not all abortions are unjust killings. Some pregnancies are not planned, yet every way to avoid it, birth control, condoms, etc., was used. The mother should have a choice about her body on whether or not she wants to house this child. Thomson compares this to a burglar coming into your house. If you leave windows open and a burglar comes in, is it justified that he has to
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
With respect to abortion, the female is regarded as the best person to know herself and her current situation, and dismisses those of the father. The female is the one who experiences the most difficulties of the pregnancy, and is the most affected by the pregnancy. Liberalism allows her to be at liberty to decide if she is ready to go through the difficulties of pregnancy, including the supporting a child after birth. If the choice of abortion was taken from the pregnant female, and she had no legal choice but to accept the unwanted pregnancy; the child could enter the world with an unprepared mother who, depending on her situation, might not be capable of supporting a child, thus possibly restricting the child’s opportunities later in life. These reasons are supported by Robin West, who states that the female is the one who has to go through the physical pains of pregnancy, the financial strains of supporting the child, and having her life opportunities narrowed and altered. It is evident then that the woman, who has the unwanted pregnancy, is the best person to know and decide the right moral decision, and not the state or another