A Defense Of Abortion Is A Moral Philosophy Paper

A woman never agrees to being raped, thus she has no obligation to sustain the fetus’ life.

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.

When the topic of pro-life or pro-choice is brought into discussion, one should always keep in mind that it is ultimately the mother’s choice. In an

If a fetus has a right to life, then the fetus’s right to life outweighs the mother’s right to decide what happens to her body.

Judith Jarvis Thomson is an American moral philosopher that is well known for her defense of moral justice and description of moral rights. She has published in prestigious papers in ethics, metaphysics, and the philosophy of law. Including the most widely written essay “A Defense of Abortion” , that was published in 1971 in the journal of philosophy and public affairs. This essay constructs abortion rights with pregnant woman’s rights to control her own body and it’s life support purpose, as opposed to denying the quality or condition of the unborn child.

Judith Jarvis Thomson has argued that a woman surely can defend her life against the threat to it posed by an unborn child, even if doing so involves its death. In her view, it cannot seriously be thought to be murder if the mother performs an abortion on herself to save her life. I will be explaining how Thomson’s arguments for this view are not compelling. I will defend the extreme view, the view that abortion is impermissible even to save the mother's life, by demonstrating that there are key points, which undermine her house analogy and by introducing concepts that are lacking in her ownership thesis. I will argue these points assuming that a fetus is a person, every person has a right to life, and therefore a fetus has a right to life.

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. Three of her main example was – famous violinist thought experiment, people seeds thought experiment, and sharing chocolate theory. She first started with a nice example, where all premises were right therefore conclusion had to be true. She proposed – every fetus is a person, every person

Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that a fetus does not have a right to use the body of a woman, therefore abortion should be permissible since the fetus is not being killed unjustly. I shall contradict Thomson’s argument because it states abortion is a just killing and lists scenarios that cannot compare to the severity of abortion in order to justify the liberal view on abortion.

Abortion is a major issue that has lead to many different opinions, ideas, and various debates. Proponents for abortion often use the fact that a fetus is not a moral person to justify their position, whereas those who are against the issue often claim that a fetus is a moral person and should deserve every right a moral person has, including the right to live. Judith Jarvis Thomson, however, takes an entirely different approach. In her article “A Defense of Abortion” Thomson argues that even if a fetus is considered to be a human being does not automatically ensure it the right to live. Thomson’s position leads to many oppositions and critiques. Foot’s article, for example, “ Killing versus Letting Die” attempts to point out the flaws in Thomson’s argument. Foot claims that a fetus’ status must be considered when addressing the issue of abortion and that Thomson’s argument is invalid. Although Thomson’s argument may seem valid at first, Foot does offer considerable evidence critiquing the validity of Thomson’s argument.

The pro-life and pro-choice argument is ongoing, but perhaps one of the most common mistakes when looking at the abortion question is to assume that all abortions are the same. Not only that, the argument that abortions should not be allowed under any circumstances asserts claims on the immorality of abortion as it emphasizes that abortion is wrong. On the other hand, to allow abortion does not imply that it is right, it merely says that it is, so if a person who is pregnant feels it is wrong, then they should also have the choice to give the child up for adoption or keep it. In this essay, I will argue for the position that abortion should be allowed under some circumstances, and that is to say that there are numerous legitimate reasons

The pro-choice argument that women have the right to do what they please with their body is valid, however, this right is less important in comparison to the right to life. An unborn baby’s right to life outweighs women’s personal rights in every situation; humanity is the most important factor in deciding this. To claim that an unborn baby is a human should prove that abortion is immoral. Humans deserve the right to life in every circumstance. To say that a human baby has less right to life than any other person is to say that every killing of a person could be justifiable.

The right that a woman has to make choices concerning her own body is the basis for several prochoice arguments concerning abortion. While prolife advocates will tie their arguments to the moral status of the fetus we will look at some cases where the fetus’s right to life are not the focus of the abortion argument.

One of the most controversial topics in the field of philosophy is abortion. The issue about the morality of abortion is continuously debated. The matter of abortion hinges on the question of personhood—because since then, every person has a moral status. The big question about the morality of abortion rise on the question: when does personhood begins? The two main sides of the abortion debate is between the conservative view which is supported by the Catholic Church and the liberal view which is supported by optimistic philosophers of abortion.

A female who is in a life or death situation due to her fetus should have the alternative to terminate her pregnancy. In the article,”Doctors say abortions do sometimes save women’s lives,” it says,”to allow abortion if necessary to prevent the death of a mother.” An example of this is with a woman named Cecily Kellogg, a 44 year old writer who lives near Philadelphia, was put in a situation where she was 6 months pregnant with 2 twin boys and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had died and she dealt with her liver shutting down, her kidneys shutting down, and was expecting to seize any minute. Doctors had to quickly dilate her cervix and perform an abortion to save her life. “I fought it- But they told me I would die- that it was either

The mother’s rights to her own body is more important than the rights of the fetus she carries within her body. There are two different ways of proving this argument.