Vidhi Jasani
Philosophy 1110-007
Prof. Bartolome
November 24, 2014
Murder of an Innocent
Abortion is the deliberate killing of the weakest and most defenseless among us. A pregnant woman has the right to decide whether her baby should live or die. But what about the unborn baby? Doesn’t it get a say? Doesn’t its life cost anything? According to the first amendment of the constitution, we have the freedom of speech. So why not give the speechless fetus a chance to come into the world? If the reason for an abortion is not having enough money or wanting to live a free life, then there are many organizations that can help children that have no support from their family. In this paper, I will defend the view that having an abortion is morally wrong.
…show more content…
He argues in his article “A Defense of Abortion” that it is permissible to kill the fetus. He argues that even though the fetus has already become a human person before birth and has begun acquiring human characteristics, it is ethically allowable to kill the fetus. He provides an example of a violinist where you wake up in the morning with a famous unconscious violinist in your bed that has a fatal kidney ailment and you alone have the right blood type to help him. Therefore you are kidnapped and the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood. The chances are that if the violinist gets unplugged from you now, he will die, but if you wait for nine months, the violinist will have recovered from his illness, and can safely be unplugged from you. Simultaneously, things can go wrong and you might end up staying in bed with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life (Thomson, p.49). Thomson believes that you can acceptably unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death because right to life does not mean that you can use someone else’s body for your own sake. Judith Thomson say that abortion does not violate the fetus’s legal right, but only denies the fetus that it has no right to use his/her mother’s body. Another argument that Thomson presents is that it is morally permissible to have an abortion if the …show more content…
But in the case of abortion, you were engaged in the activities that made you pregnant. In short, it was natural and you are the reason behind the fetus existing. Therefore, the fetus absolutely has the right to come into the world and must not be killed. Another objection I would present is this: If you unplug yourself from the violinist, you may feel bad, don’t care because he is just a stranger to you. On the other hand, the fetus is the pregnant woman’s child, DNA and her blood. Thomson might reply saying that what if your daughter, who you never met but she has our DNA, was plugged into you instead of the violinist. Would you still get your daughter unplugged from you? In the case of my daughter, I would never unplug myself from my daughter no matter if it nine months or the entire
To begin with, Thomson uses a thought experiment about a hypothetical famous violinist, to further her argument that abortion is morally permissible. In this thought experiment, you are kidnapped and unconsciously plugged to a famous violinist so that your kidney can remove toxins from the violinist’s kidney and ultimately save his life. Thomson argues that you are not required to stay plugged to the famous violinist even if unplugging yourself from the violinist would result in his death. Thomson argues that while everyone has the right to life, no one has the right to dictate what happens to another person 's body.
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.
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.
Thomson uses many different examples in which he describes the different situations and premises that an abortion might have to states his points. There are 3 main examples that he uses the most, first is the violinist, secondly Henry Fonda and Thirdly the peoples seed. In his first argument he uses the experiment of the violinist and a person being kidnapped. The violinist is well known and famous and is in need for a kidney. In this situation the kidnap you because he can connect to your kidney and survive. But Thomson puts the point in which no one gave them the right to your body, despite the point that it could be just for a few days of months, he relates it to Abortion as that no one says that the fetus if a person has the right not
With Thomson’s violinist analogy she shows that although disconnecting him would result in death, it would not be morally incorrect. This argument can be applied to a woman’s pregnancy, suggesting that if you accept the prior statement and can find no reasonable difference between the violinist and the fetus occupying the woman’s body, then you should accept that abortion can be acceptable. Thomson
In Thomson’s defence of abortion she argues that abortion is permissible when a mother’s life is not at risk. Working on her interpretation of the secular conservative argument, she first assumes that the premise of a foetus being a person is true, then moves onto the second premise, that a person has the right to life. Analysing what the right to life means, she first looks at the idea that the right to life is the right to have the bare minimum a person needs in order to survive. She quickly rebuts this by providing the Henry Fonda analogy and the violinist analogy. Both of these show that just because a person needs something to survive, like Henry Fonda’s cool hand or another person’s kidneys, a person doesn’t have the right to take it. With this in mind she modifies the argument so that the right to life is the right not to be killed. This she rebuffs with the violin analogy, noting that by pulling the plugs you would in effect be killing the violinist. While the violinist didn’t have the right to your kidneys, it could be argued that he does have the right for you not to intervene. However these are your kidneys, and you should not be forced to allow him continued use. Having ascertained that the right to life is not the right to the bare minimum needed to survive, nor the right not to be killed, she concludes that the right to life is the right not to be killed unjustly, or the
There are many people with permanent disability’s that contribute to our society in very useful ways. In most cases, these people are viewed as being courageous. This kind of a reaction is typical but not always honest. There are a lot of people are uncomfortable around those that are considered “less than normal”. In her article The Abortion Debate No One Wants to Have, Patricia Bauer writes about Down’s syndrome and abortion. Bauer is a former reporter and bureau chief for the Washington Post.
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.
Abortion is a woman or teen pregnancy and end up making a choice of giving up on the baby, they go to the doctor and they perform a procedure that is going to kill the baby. People don´t realize how bad and horrible it is killing a baby they don´t know the exact representation of it. Meg Meeker a pediatrician had thought that having an abortion was acceptable because the woman can decide what they want for their body, until one day she seen a video of how exactly an abortion happens. She thought it was cruel on how they got rid of it. Obviously the women don´t see because they make them turn away. Meg described that ¨A woman laying down on her back, her face turned away. He talked to the sound of the vacuum used to extract the arms, the legs, and the shredded torso of the tiny child¨. People don´t feel bad because they don´t see exactly how the process is, they don´t know what´s going on or else they would feel bad. Yes 99% of the women don´t regret their
Someone once said,“Being pro choice doesn’t mean you would have an abortion. It just means you think the choice is yours, not the government's. In the New York Times editorial written on June 27, 2016, entitled, “ A Major Victory for Abortion Rights,” the writers are targeting young women can understand that the choice of abortion should be in the women's hands. This article is about keeping abortion legal in America, but primarily Texas. The writer's emotional appeals, word choices, and logic to successfully encourage the readers.
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
In this argument it has been established then, that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Thompson now introduces her “violinist analogy.” This is a key term in her argument. In this analogy she asks the reader to imagine you wake one morning and find yourself in bed with an unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and you alone have the right blood type to save him. You have been kidnapped in the middle of the night, and the violinist’s circulatory system is now plugged into yours. The director of the Hospital is now telling you “Sorry, the Society of Music Lovers did this to you – we would never have permitted it if we had known.” To get unplugged from the violinist will kill him, but in nine months he will be totally recovered from his ailment and you can be safely unplugged from one another. Thompson then asks, “Is it a moral responsibility for the kidnapped person to agree to this situation?” This situation she has concocted is comparable to that of a woman being raped. Pro – lifers say every person has a right to life and that right to life is stronger than the mothers right to decide what happens in her body. Thompson then goes on to say that instead of being plugged to the violinist’s body for nine months – its changed to your whole life. According to the pro –life
The medical director states that you are not morally obligated to stay connected to the violinist, but it would be nice if you did. The violinist is a person and therefore has the right to life. This would entail that the violinist’s right to life outweighs your ability to choose what happens in and to your body (based on this premise). For the sake of argument Thomson grant’s the fetus the same rights as a moral person: the right to live and the right to not be killed by another person. But by this sole premise she argues that the fetus’s right to life cannot outweigh the mother’s decision to choose what happens in or to her body. Just like the violinist’s rights do not outweigh your rights. In this argument I will argue that Thomson’s violinist theory is not a valid one. I will evaluate Thomson’s premise and draw attention to the false analogy that her premise