Analysis: A Defense Of Abortion

When he compiles his argument he begins by providing the argument for a ‘pro-choice’ approach which makes the assumption that a fetus is a being but one who's life is not ethically applicable and can be ended without moral consequence. This gives us an insight into the apparent symmetry between this set of ideals in contrast with the beliefs of the

From these two notions stems three basic views, or platforms, individuals use as the backbone for their argument when making their case for the right or wrongness of abortion. Conservatives believe under no circumstance is it morally acceptable to perform an abortion. Liberals believe abortions are permissible at any time during pregnancy and for any reason. Lastly, moderates stand behind the notion that abortions are morally permissible in some situations but not all. Over time hundreds of philosophers have attempted to justify their view point with sound theories; three of which, Don Marquis, Michael Tooley and Judith Thomson, seem to have done so successfully.

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.

defends that abortion is a morally sound action. Don Marquis, in his essay An Argument that Abortion is Wrong, takes the opposite stance. He claims “that abortion, except perhaps in rare instances, is seriously wrong”.

In her opening statement she first starts of stating a fetus is consider to be a human being or a person from the moment of conception. They have the right to life just like any other person does. In lines 1-10 “Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception.”(“Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion.” Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion, Oct. 1991,spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm.”) Thomson is drawing a line between what we consider to be a person meaning a human being or an adult, to what makes us a human being or an adult. In her first example she talks about an acorn falling from an oak tree automatically being consider to be an oak tree or to be still labeled as an acorn. In lines 10 -14“Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are.”(“Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion.” Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of

“Abortion is impermissible, because it deprives a being of a future like ours. Accordingly, it is morally similar to killing a healthy adult.”

Thomson also points out a flaw in the counterargument by saying that “opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that a fetus is a person, and hardly any time explaining the step from there to the impermissibility of abortion” (266). By including both sides of the argument, agreeing with the opposition, and pointing out a flaw in their argument, Thomson makes her argument more persuasive not only by demonstrating her vast knowledge of the issue, but also by diminishing her opponent’s

From the time that Warren’s article. “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”, was published she had gotten critiques that her argument “appears to justify not only abortion, but infanticide as well.”(Warren, 16) Warren claims that if her argument is valid then infanticide is not a form of murder, since you are not killing a person. A human being is a person if they have the previous characteristics of personhood introduced into her argument. According to Warren

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.

Abortion is arguably one of the most debated topics in the modern 20th century. The sides argued in this debate are pro-life and pro-choice. This debate can be found in politics, planned parenthood discussions, and even philosophy. Many philosophers have tired to settle this debate in terms of morality. Don Marquis addresses this debate in his article “Why abortion is immoral” supporting the pro-life choice. On the other hand, Judith Jarvis Thomson supports the pro-choice position in her article “A Defense of Abortion”. After reading both articles and critically analyzing them I believe that Thompson presents a much more persuasive case.

In Mary Anne Warren’s “The Abortion Issue,” children are not persons in the empirical sense. Warren believes that prior to a certain point in a pregnancy, the child does not have “the capacity to understand” the ramifications of what an abortion would be, therefore the abortion does not infringe upon the rights of the unborn fetus. She states that: “…in the ways that matter from a moral point of view, human fetuses are very unlike human persons, particularly in their early months of development”(152). In essence, personhood as defined by Warren can only come after the first trimester. Before that time, the fetus does not have the sentience that would make it a person. Warren’s main criteria for

Warren thinks that not all humans are persons, and there could be persons that aren’t human. Warren is not trying to analyze or define the concept of personhood. Rather, she is trying to give a list of traits that are central to the concept of personhood. The five characteristics which evaluate personhood are consciousness, reason, self-motivated activities, the capacity to communicate, and the presence of self-awareness. Warren states that at least some of these are necessary, if not sufficient, criteria for personhood. She argues that fetuses do not meet any of these criteria, therefore they cannot be persons, and cannot have moral standing, and therefore abortion is

The concept fetus is used to denote the unborn human from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo (the product of conception from implantation in the uterus through the eighth week of development). A fetus contains all the organs and has the basic human form. (Rand)

To Abort or not to Kill Mary Anne Warren argues that it is the woman's decision whether to abort fetuses. With the two concepts of humanity in mind, moral and genetic, she explains a set of criteria that anyone must fit to be considered morally human. She explains how this criterion can be used to help us define what has rights such as sentient robots or aliens. She argues that although infanticide shouldn't be considered illegal it should be considered wrong. I can understand why people would want to abort their babies, but given their techniques of going through with it and the fact that I do consider fetuses people I can’t condone it.

Thomson continues to dissect her scenarios that promote her support of abortion. She ends this essay after explaining that although she supports abortion rights, she does not think that all cases are suitable for abortion.