Essay about An Ethical Argument Against Abortion

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.

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.

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

While parts of both may be true, both cannot stand side by side as completely true when discussing abortion. As they stand today, fetus rights and female rights are incompatible in arena of abortion. Even the “other side” agrees that the two cannot stand shoulder to shoulder. In a chapter entitled “Abortion Does Not Violate Human Rights”, Christian Beenfeldt quotes Brian McKinely when claiming that female rights have a higher precedence than fetus rights: “It’s actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other.” So one question remains, which more important, fetus rights or female rights? The winner of this question can be decided by one simple factor: is the fetus to be considered a true, living human being at the point of conception, or does true human life not begin until after birth? A clarification should be made here, however. In this paper it will be assumed that everyone involved in this debate considers a newborn child to be a human being. That is, at the moment of birth, a child either becomes a human being or continues to be a human being; regardless of the fetus’s life state before birth, it will be assumed that all agree that birth “confirms”, so to speak, the life and human existence of the newborn.

In Thomson’s two arguments about rape and failure of contraceptive she has some points that are in fact true and not much can be questioned. In her first argument about rape, it makes sense to say that if someone were to use your body against your will and you have no say about it and be and you are forced to be stuck without a choice to get up and disconnect yourself even if it does kill the famous violinist is wrong. But when you deprive someone of their life it can’t be seen to be correct in any case. Thomson’s first premise is in fact true and gives her argument against rape logical strength. Both the violinist and the fetus are using the person’s body

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 believes pregnancy caused by rape can best be described by the violinist thought experiment. In this pretend that a famous violinist is dying. The only way to save him is if you were hooked up to him for say nine months or more. But instead of being given a choice to be hooked up. You are kidnapped and attached to him without your consent. You think you are given the choice to be removed from the other person once upon waking up. But the hospital refuses as this is a very famous violinist and the world needs him to continue living. You have to be connected to save the violinist’s life since pulling the plug seems to not be an option. Doing so will kill him and that would be violating his right to life. So this can be comparable to the basic anti-abortion argument. Every person has a right to life. A violinist is a person. Which means the violinist has a right to life. Therefore for the violinist to live he has the right to be attached to you (Thomson 48-49).

While Thomson makes many different analogies in his essay “A Defense of Abortion”, none were as persuasive as the famous violinist analogy. In the analogy, Thomas paints the picture of someone being kidnapped and their kidneys being used to support the life of the violinist. Thomson uses this argument to represent the idea of a woman supporting the life of a child or fetus at the expense of their own. Thomson goes on to show the reader that the idea of unplugging yourself is not unjust, therefore “unplugging” yourself from a fetus is not unjust as well. The question of rape is also addressed with this analogy as the violinist is violating the victim’s body just as the rapist does. Thomson goes on to modify the analogy throughout the essay. The first modification to the analogy is that the act of supporting the violinist will kill you, just as sometimes birth may kill a woman. In either case, it is widely accepted that unplugging yourself or aborting the baby is within

Thomson assumes all fetuses have a right to life, but believes there are exceptions which permit abortions. Exceptions such as the mother’s life being at risk, rape, incest, ignorance of how you become pregnant, and contraceptive failure all in her opinion relieves you of the responsible of pregnancy, deeming it permissible to abort the fetus. Thomson uses a variety of analogies to support her theory, such as waking up one morning connected to a violinist who you are keeping alive by sharing your circulatory system. You did not agree to this, and are told you must stay connected for nine months or the violinist will die. Thomson explains how you were abducted and connected against your own will, similar to a rape victim. Which leads to her conclude it was not of your choosing to be plugged together and so it is your choice to unplug or not. She uses another analogy along the lines of failed contraceptive, stating you put up screens on your windows knowing

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

Philosopher Judith Thomson, in her article “A Defense of Abortion,” presents a hypothetical case of a famous violinist who has a health condition that can only be healed by getting “connected” to someone compatible and use his kidneys for 9 months to clean his contaminated blood. A compatible person is then kidnapped, rendered unconscious, and connected without permission to the dying violinist. When the victim wakes up, he gets an explanation and is presented with two options: he stays connected for nine months to help the violinist survive his ailment or he disconnects himself, immediately causing the death of the violinist (CC Reader, Summer 2013, p. 37).

Here Thomson assumes that both scenarios will reveal the same conclusion. Just as the reader (1) is under no moral obligation to use his body to support the violinist, a woman (2) is under no obligation to support a human fetus. So Thomson's analogy has directed the reader to the conclusion, that abortion as in the case of unhooking oneself from the violinist is sometimes morally permissible.

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

Abortion is a serious topic that people have been debating about for years. Everywhere you turn the topic of abortion presents itself, on TV, in the newspapers, in books and magazines. It already has, and will continue to cause, controversy for years to come. As long as abortion remains legal, pro-life advocates will continue to protest what they believe to be these horrible acts of murder.

Thomson goes further saying what if it was not just nine months but nine years or more. She uses this outrageous analogy to compare pregnancy and motherhood to a lifelong arduous commitment where one is burdened by commitment for nine or more years, not even being able to have a life. However the vast majority of pregnancies occur from seven weeks to six months of development, so the actual difference between a women who aborts her child compared to a women who doesn’t is not nine months but three to seven months. To add a women can give her child up for adoption to one of the thousands of families waiting to adopt a child, so the claim that a women is obligated to an unconscious “violinist” or a child for nine years is false. Nevertheless a women’s’ choice to have an abortion is a selfish act void of any maternal wisdom such as love, compassion and care. Although pregnancy is only a brief condition an abortion creates a permanent one, the loss of an infant.