A Defense Of Abortion Rhetorical Analysis

The goal of Judith Jarvis Thomson in her defense of abortion is to sway the ideas of those who are against abortion by challenging the arguments they give for thinking so. She begins by stating a premise. “For the sake of the argument” a human embryo is a person. This premise is one of the arguments most opponents of abortion use, but as she points out, isn’t much of an argument at all. These people spend a lot of their time dwelling on the fact that the fetus is a person and hardly any time explaining how the fetus being a person has anything to with abortion being impermissible. In the same breath, she states that those who agree with abortion spend a lot of their time

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.

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

Thomson’s argument, “A Defense on Abortion,” is a piece written to point out the issues in many arguments made against abortion. She points out specific issues in arguments made, for example, about life beginning at conception and if that truly matters as an argument against abortion. Thomson uses multiple analogies when making her points against the arguments made against abortion. These analogies are used to show that the arguments made do not really make sense in saying it is immoral to have an abortion. These analogies do not work in all cases, and sometimes they only work in very atypical cases, but still make a strong argument. There are also objections made to Thomson’s argument, which she then replies to, which makes her argument even stronger. Her replies to these arguments are very strong, saying biology does not always equate responsibility, and that reasonable precaution is an important factor in the morality of abortion. There are some major issues in her responses to these objections.

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 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

For the sake of argument, Thomson grants the premise that a fetus is considered a person. Thomson does claim, however, that this premise is not able to justify the fact that abortion is morally impermissible in all situations. She is ultimately criticizing an inference that some may argue, but also rejects another premise: when the fetus’s right to life is greater than the mother’s. Thomson’s initial argument is a response to the anti-abortionist argument, stating every person has a right to life, but the mother has a right to decide what happens with or in her body, but the fetus also has a right to life and is living inside of the mother. Therefore, the abortion cannot be allowed in the anti-abortionist position.

Cecile Jerez Phil 102 Prof. Gill Shen May 27, 2016 Final Paper based on “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thompson I'm going to argue that Thompson is right to claim that, even if a fetus is a person, abortion is still permissible when special conditions are present, as being raped, illness of the mother or the fetus, as well for the mother's rights over their body. (50 words) According to the text Judith is arguing that a fetus has become a person right after conception and that practicing an abortion is killing an innocent person over the argument that a fetus is not a person till it is born. She supports her argument by giving many examples of how this topic can be analyzed from different points of view in real life and how

Judith Jarvis Thomson proposes her argument in her article, A Defense of Abortion. There, she explains to her readers during what circumstances is abortion justifiable. Thomson uses the argument by analogy strategy to explain to her readers her argument. She tries to reach her conclusion by comparing it to similar cases. The point she is trying to make is to tell her readers that abortion is morally permissible only in some cases, like when the mother has been a victim of rape, when contraception has failed or when the pregnancy is of danger to the mother. She explains to her readers that abortion is justifiable only in some cases, not all. Thomson uses the case of a violinist to show her readers that abortion is morally permissible when a woman has been victim of rape. She also uses the people seeds story as an analogy to explain that abortion is morally acceptable when contraception has failed. Thomson also mentions the right to life in her article. She uses the right to life to explain to us that it is morally justifiable for the mother to abort the fetus when the fetus is endangering the mother’s life. In order to help her readers understand the notion of right to life she is trying to propose to us, she does so by using the Henry Fonda example. In my point of view, I find most of Thomson’s analogies irrelevant to the argument she is trying to make. I will explain to my readers why I find Thomson’s analogies irrelevant.

Judith Jarvis Thomson, like many philosophers, was interested in not only talking about war, self-defense, and other issues about the rights of women. Thomson in A Defense of Abortion stated that everyone has the right to life. She did not personally believe that this was the case, but she wanted to set it so that the passage would not focus on whether or not a fetus has a right at conception or at birth. Thomson’s definition of one’s right to life is the right not to be killed “unjustly.” This view can be controversial due to the fact that the definition of unjust may differ among others.

One argument against this analogy is the violinist and abortion has many differences. Assuming that the Thomson’s case is a large analogy, one can argue that a fetus and the mother have a biological connection together, while the violinist and the abducted person are artificially connected. Therefore, there is a major difference between the two. However, this relationship is not a sound argument to provide relevance to the moral permissibility. Moreover, one can argue the analogy used in this case is not an argument. The counterexample does not use the analogy to make the whole argument. If the analogy is not included in the counterexample, the counterexample will still be just as effective because violinist in her counterexample can be replaced with a fetus. This word swap will retain the same idea. The moral standing of this case provide sufficient proof that this counterargument was successful at disproving the target argument premise

In Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion,” Thomson uses three thought experiments to support his view on abortion. The first of his thought experiments is a scenario which involves a violinist. With this thought experiment the point he tries to make is that it is in fact outrageous and absurd to consider that the right of someone else’s life is more significant than the right to decide what happens in/to your own body. This is to say that another’s person life is more important than your own body’s health and what is going on regarding your own body. Another thought experiment he uses is Henry Fonda.