A Defense Of Abortion By Judith Jarvis Thomson

The next issue is, in Thomson’s opinion, the most important question in the abortion debate; that is, what exactly does a right to life bring about? The premise that “everyone has a right to life, so the unborn person has a right to life” suggests that the right to life is “unproblematic,” or straight-forward. We know that isn’t true. Thomson gives an analogy involving Henry Fonda. You are sick and dying and the touch of Henry Fonda’s hand will heal you. Even if his touch with save your life, you have no right to be “given the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand.” A stricter view sees the right to life as more of a right to not be killed by anybody. Here too troubles arise. In the case of the violinist, if we are to “refrain from killing the violinist,” then we must basically allow him to kill you. This contradicts the stricter view. The conclusion Thomson draws from this analogy is “that having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body—even if one needs it for life itself.” This argument again proves the basic argument wrong. The right to life isn’t as clear of an argument as I’m sure opponents of abortion would like it to be or believe it is.

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.

Second, the author uses her “expanding child” example. “Trapped in a tiny house with a growing child and you are up against a wall, and in a few minutes, you will be crushed, on the other hand the child won’t be crushed. The only thing that will save her life is to kill the child. Is abortion permissible to save the pregnant woman’s life? Because the mother being compared to that of the house, this brings up the idea that the mother should be able to do as she pleases with her body, and that her body carries more significance than the fetus’ right to life. This brings in the argument of a third-party intervention, such as a doctor. If a doctor did not agree to perform an abortion, to save this mother, then the mother would be denied her rights, and the right to decide what is done with her body. If a woman doesn’t have a right to their body, then you should not be unplugged, thus, save the violinists life. This reasoning is concluded with two smart statements, “It seems to me that to treat the matter in this very way (refuse abortion for the mother’s health) is to refuse to grant the very status of person which is so firmly insisted on for the fetus by anti-abortion advocates. (243) and “a fetus who existence is due to rape” has no right to use their mother’s bodies, and aborting them is not depriving them of anything they had a

In Judith A. Thomson’s article, ‘A defense of abortion’ Thomson defends her view that in some cases abortion is morally permissible. She takes this stance even with the premise that fetuses upon the moment of conception are in fact regarded as persons. However one criticism of her argument would be that there is a biological relationship between mother and fetus however there is no biological relationship between you and the violinist. Having this biological relationship therefore entails special responsibility upon the mother however there is no responsibility in the case of the violinist. Thomson argues against those who are opposed to abortion with her violinist thought experiment.

In her article, “The Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson states an analogy involving a violinist. She first states that you are allowed to unplug yourself in the violinist scenario, second abortion after rape is analogous to the violinist scenario, therefore, you should be allowed to unplug yourself and be allowed to abort after rape (Chwang, Abortion slide 12). In this paper, I will argue that abortion is morally acceptable even if the fetus is considered a person. This paper will criticize premise two from the traditional argument against abortion string that killing innocent persons is wrong (Chwang, Abortion slide 9). Following the violinist analogy will be an objection to this analogy and my respons to them. One of the

In the “Violinist Analogy,” Thomson argues that in cases of rape and other ways in which a woman might become pregnant without making the decision to have sex, it is not immoral to have an abortion. She makes this argument through the analogy that you are hooked up to a “famous unconscious violinist” and if you unplug yourself you are causing the death of that violinist. This point works very well in the argument that it seems as though abortion is allowable in cases of rape.

Now on a different note, Thomson's main argument is set out to undermine the anti-abortionist argument. The anti-abortionist argument states: Every person has a right to life, the fetus is a person and hence has a right to life. The mother has the right to control her own body, but the fetuses' right to life is stronger than her right to control her body. Therefore, abortion is wrong. How Thomson goes about this is through analogies, and her main argument is through her violinist argument. Thomson asks you imagine that you find yourself hooked up to a famous unconscious violinist. If he can't use your kidneys for nine months, he'll die.

In “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thompson, Thompson works to argue that even if a human fetus is considered a person, abortion is still often morally permissible. This paper will work to explain Thompson’s positions on the different accounts of the right to life, and to provide an evaluation of them and explain why they are not plausible, specifically regarding three of the analogies on-which she based her entire argument: the violinist, the coat, and the case of Kitty Genovese, as well as to explore a logical counterargument and explain why it’s stance is impermissible.

In this paper I will discuss the relevance of J.J. Thomson’s argument in her article, A Defense of Abortion, to that of pregnancy reduction and if there is any relevance, if there are exceptions or situations where that might change. J.J. Thomson’s argument in A Defense of Abortion is that the one thing a person has rights to is his/her body and the right to control what happens with it. Thomson also states that there is an innate desire and need for self-preservation that we all have that must additionally be considered.

I am going to argue that Thomson is right to claim that, even if a fetus is a person, abortion is still permissible when mothers life is in danger, or if she was raped by someone, or in a critical situation. (46) There have been arguments more than decades over abortion, some philosopher says it’s oaky to have abortion; other considers it as murder of an unborn child. However philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson shares her thoughts through her writing “A Defense of Abortion”. According to her abortion is not morally right thing to do but in certain situations it is permissible. She gave her reader mainly three examples and she wanted to convey her message through it.

Judith J. Thomson an American philosopher wrote an interesting take on the right of a women receiving an abortion in her piece called “A Defense of Abortion”, written in 1971. “A Defense of Abortion” for Judith, the piece is one of her most recognized works. On top of being one of her most famous pieces, “A Defense of Abortion” could possibly be the most famous piece on abortion in philosophical history as of the current date. Judith J. Thomson was an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, there her specialty was applied ethics and metaphysics. Judith’s writing in “A Defense of Abortion,” insists that abortion is morally correct if the women is under certain circumstances.

What takes precedence; an unborn fetus’ life or its mother’s right to her body? Anti-abortionist argue that the life of an unborn fetus has priority, and thus abortion is morally impermissible as it violates the fetus’ right to life. In her article “A Defense of Abortion”, Judith Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible under the certain conditions where the rights of the fetus fail to surpass a mother’s right of choice. For the sake of her argument, Thomson allows the assumption that a fetus is a person, and instead attacks the premise that the fetus’ right to life is stronger than that of a mother’s body integrity. The main argument that Thomson makes is that right to life, defined by some as the right to “be given the bare minimum a man needs for continued life”, is not an absolute right (Thomson 55). This means that the right to life is not unconditionally above all other rights, such as the right of bodily integrity. For Thomson, this allows a mother to make the morally permissible decision to have an abortion for limited reasons: in the case of rape, pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, and the mother took measures to prevent the contraception. Thomson undertakes a Deontological when making her argument, which I will dispute using a Utilitarian approach. While I agree with Thomson that the fetus’ right to life does not allow the use of the mother’s body in cases of rape and threat to life, I will argue against the premise that an abortion is morally

“A Defense of Abortion is a moral philosophy paper written by Judith Jarvis Thomson. In this she justifies abortion in a few select cases. She starts by examining the basic argument against abortion and grants for the sake of argument that a human embryo is a person.

The key features of the argument on the nature of abortion developed by Judith Thomson first focuses on the extreme anti-abortion view, second the right to life, third the right to live and use the mother’s body, fourth having rights and their being certain limits, and fifth the good Samaritan and the responsibilities of the parents. The extreme anti-abortion view develops a thinking that when a mother’s life is threatened if she should carry her baby to full term what is the decision she must make. Opponents of abortion believe that the fetus’s life is more important than the mother’s life and that the mother should not abort the child. Even though, opponents may believe that the fetus being a person has every right to life so does the mother. A mother aborting her child cannot be considered an act of murder, because she is only doing it to save her own life. For example as stated in the text:

In A Defense of Abortion, Thomson states at the very beginning “it is concluded that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception” (Thomson 449). She then goes in to comparing it to the acorn and the oak tree reference. She uses these two ideas to show that the fetus is already a part of you. It may not be a human at that point, but it is still growing in the stomach of the mother. Thomson then goes into using examples of a violinist who has fatal kidney problems, so your kidneys get hooked to his in order to save his life. Once he gets unhooked from his lifeline, he will die. This example is used to really help understand abortion. Much like the violinist, if the fetus gets unattached to its lifeline, it will die. Thomson then goes into describing the extremist view of a mother letting the fetus become a baby, even though it might very well kill her. She expresses her opinion, “The fetus, being a person, has a right to life, but as the mother is a person too, so has she a right to life” (Thomson 451). She realizes that even though the fetus has been conceived, because it is not a human, the mother should have just as much a life as the