A Case Study From Grand Canyon University

In this paper I am going to critically evaluate “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Thompson, a moral philosopher and metaphysician, who argues that is morally okay to abort a fetus even if the fetus is considered a person and contrast it to another moral philosopher and utilitarian, Peter Singer who deems her argument to be flawed.

One of the most frequently debated topics in bioethics is the morality of abortion, or the ending of a pregnancy without physically giving birth to an infant. Often times abortions are categorized into either spontaneous, a natural miscarriage; induced or intentional, which is premeditated and for any reason; or therapeutic, which albeit intentional, its sole purpose is to save the mother’s life. It seems however that moral conflicts on issue mainly arise when discussing induced abortions. In general, people universally agree it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person and in some people’s eyes induced abortions are the intentional killings of innocent persons, thus making them immoral. However not all individuals view fetuses as persons and consequentially argue it is not morally wrong to kill them.

In this paper I will discus and examine Judith Jarvis Thomson’s view upon abortion as stated in her argument “A Defense of Abortion”. I will explain her view on the issue and look deeper into her supporting arguments she included in her essay. I will also explain whether I agree with her statements. I would also discuss whether the person can agree with my statements and reason why having an abortion make you in moral.

To put it simply, an abortion is defined as, the intentional termination of a pregnancy most often preformed before the third trimester (within weeks 1-28). The controversy over abortions usually stems from the difficulty between individuals to agree on a set of conditions that would constitute ones’ decision, to abort as just. This issue is examined by many philosophers, particularly, Judith Thomson and Don Marquis. Both philosopher’s views loosely encompass the complex underlying beliefs of those who stand behind the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” arguments. Tomson and Marquis demonstrate the very distinctively different perspectives one could take on the issue. Don Marquis suggests that fetuses, being persons, possess the right to a “future like ours” and that it would be wrong to intentionally impede on “the life that I would have lived if I had lived out my natural lifespan” except for in “rare circumstances”. While, Tomson asserts that not all abortions are morally wrong, nor do they “violate the victim’s right to life”, and by having one that is in no way indicative that a fetus’s rights have been violated. Despite the fact that both philosophers present valid positions, and outline their key differences, Tomson goes far beyond Marquis’ efforts by illustrating that the way in which we view abortions ought to be redefined in order for one to maintain a clear perspective.

Judith Thomson makes many different arguments regarding the morality of abortion. One of her many arguments is that a woman should have a right to defend her own life, and therefore the extreme view of abortion is inherently false (268). To make her argument, Thomson does addresses two things. One, she addresses the opposition by confronting their core argument (that a fetus is a person and has a right to life), and although she may not agree, assumes that it is correct (266). Two, she addresses an analogous situation to pregnancy, the case of the violinist, on which she introduces her argument. By addressing the opposition, and discussing an analogous situation, Thomson comes to the conclusion that although a fetus may be a person and have a right to life, a mother has a right to self-defense, and therefore the extreme view of abortion (in which abortions are not permitted in any circumstances) is false (268).

In this essay, the morality of the abortion of a fetus will be discussed in a drama involving a married couple named Deb and Derek (Smolkin, Bourgeois & Findler, 2010). For clarification purposes, we must first define the topic of this discussion; abortion is defined as the act in which a female voluntarily terminates her pregnancy where this act is legally permitted (Warren, 1973). Deb who is 16 weeks pregnant discovers that the fetus she is carrying will most likely be born mentally challenged (Smolkin et al., 2010). As the drama unfolds, the couple ponders the negative impact this child will have on their business, marriage as well as the quality of life that their child will experience if it is carried to term (Smolkin

Before the premises are argued for, the following assumptions must be made. I will follow the same assumptions that Judith Thompson made in her paper. These assumptions are that a fetus is considered a human and that this argument will exclude the extreme circumstances such as rape. Therefore, this paper will focus solely on consensual sex and the morals of abortion following such intercourse, even in the case of dangers to the mothers’ life.

The debate about the legality of abortion involves debating the legal status of the fetus. If the fetus is a person, anti-choice activists argue, then abortion is murder and should be illegal. Even if the fetus is a person, though, abortion may have justified as necessary to women’s body self-govern but that wouldn’t mean that abortion is automatically ethical. Perhaps the state can’t force women to carry pregnancies to term, but it could argue that it is the most ethical choice.

Abortion is a controversial topic in the world’s culture today. There are two major stances concerning abortion: pro-life or pro-choice. If an individual is pro-life, she recognizes that a baby is a human in the womb and wants to protect the life of the baby. If an individual is pro-choice, she believes the baby in the womb is not alive and the mother has the right to do away with the fetus. Each view has a value judgment on the topic of abortion. A value judgment is a judgment someone makes on the basis of the rightness or wrongness of an issue. Pro-lifers judge that it is morally wrong to kill a human. The majority believe that a baby is a human at the moment at conception so therefore it is morally wrong to kill the baby in the mother’s

The debate about abortion focuses on two issues; 1.) Whether the human fetus has the right to life, and, if so, 2.) Whether the rights of the mother override the rights of the fetus. The two ethicists who present strong arguments for their position, and who I am further going to discuss are that of Don Marquis and Judith Thomson. Marquis' "Future Like Ours" (FLO) theory represents his main argument, whereas, Thomson uses analogies to influence the reader of her point of view. Each argument contains strengths and weaknesses, and the point of this paper is to show you that Marquis presents a more sound argument against abortion than Thomson presents for it. An in depth overview of both arguments will be

Indubitably, the topic of abortion has been enveloped with controversy since the 1960s. The divisive topic presents two sides: anti-abortionist and pro-choice. Anti-abortionist believe that it is immoral to abort the fetus. Pro-choice believe that the fetus is not yet a person therefore it is moral to abort the fetus. Nonetheless, Marquis presents an argument that states abortion is immoral; he presents a logical and convincing argument that works to an extent. After scrutinizing Marquis’ argument, it is prevalent that he does not address the wrongness in killing those who are mentally ill or are disabled as they do not have a future like ours. His failure to do so could leads us to the conclusion that it is morally permissible to kill fetuses that show signs of future mental illness or disability.

The advancement of medical technology has made it possible to detect medical abnormalities while a child is still a fetus and can create difficult choices for parents to make if severe anomalies are discovered. There are many theories regarding the moral status of the fetus that can be applied when deciding how to proceed if these abnormalities are detected. In the fetal abnormality case study, Jessica, Marco, Maria, and Dr. Wilson each have varying opinions on what course of action to take based on these different theories of moral status.

In Judith Jarvis Thomson’s A Defense of Abortion, Thomson explores the relationship between the rights of a fetus and the rights of a human, in this case the mother. Thomson is an American moral philosopher and meta-physician. She is known for her defense of moral objectivity, her account of moral rights, her views about the incompleteness of the term 'good, ' and her use of thought experiments to make philosophical points. In the article, Thomson defends abortions in several certain circumstances, the critique here is for the circumstances of unwanted pregnancy due to rape.

“Moral agency is a person’s ability to make moral judgments based on some commonly held notion of right and wrong, to do so on behalf of others, and to be held accountable for these actions” (Cherkowski, Walker, & Kutsyuruba, 2015). Jessica acts as a moral agent to give attention to their own development of moral character, and have taken the responsibility of principal of ethics to make right decision. The author believes that the moral agency theory influenced Jessica because she might have difficulty time to make decision because her moral status viewed the unborn fetus as a valuable and seeing herself as motherhood. In other side, if she gives birth to the abnormal child, she will have socioeconomic problem and difficult to manage her lives. As a mother, the author believes that it is hard to give permission to terminate the pregnancy.

“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.