Conceived In Violence, Born In Hate Summary

When touching the subject of abortion, one must consider that there are two sides battling for control. That is right, abortion has literally turned into a war zone where even the unlikely of individuals do the unthinkable. Each side has their motives and methods for contradicting the other. For instance, there are cases and events that support both sides of this issue.

Those who support abortion often overuse the claim that every individual has the right to choose and it is unfair to restrict a women’s choice on abortion. Although this claim at first thought may seem to be able to uphold the abuse of abortion, we

One of the first moral issues addressed by both sides of the abortion debate concerns a pregnant woman’s so-called natural “right” to make “reproductive choices.” (“The Rights of Pregnant Women”) Anti-abortion advocacy groups claim that “the only way to actually protect the mother’s rights will be by enforcing laws that secure her child’s right to life,” (“Argument 2”) whereas pro-abortion groups contend that these laws “create a dangerous precedent for wide-ranging government intrusion into the lives of all women.” (“The Rights”) With two fundamentally contrasting viewpoints at odds with each other, it is apparent that one of the core issues concurrent with abortion is a woman’s rights versus the rights of her unborn fetus.

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.

In cases where a mother’s life is in jeopardy, and caused by her pregnancy, Thomson argues that it would not be called murder for the mother to kill the fetus in order for the mother to save her own life (267). Thomson uses the analogous situation of the violinist in order to portray her argument. If it would not be wrong for you

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

As a result, since the mother never granted permission for the foetus to be in her body, according to Thomson, it would follow that abortion in this particular circumstance is not killing unjustly. Therefore, abortion is morally permissible and is a reasonable decision despite the fact that the pregnancy was the product of the woman having consensual sexual intercourse and doing it voluntarily. Thomson made a logical argument, with the assumption that her experiments had addressed all potential cases of pregnancy, and proving that it is morally acceptable to abort in all proposed cases, then concluding that it is still never immoral. Despite this, it must be brought up that, Thomson recognized the morals and values of the individual who is willing to do whatever it takes to sustain the violinist’s life, an action that sets the bar for morality so high that it would be unacceptable to expect one to follow. Furthermore, Thomson states that while she is “arguing for the permissibility of abortion in some cases” (Thomson, 66), she is “not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child” (Thomson, 66). She also points out that we must be confuse these two

Each person, man or woman has a right to their own body. A woman has a right to dictate what happens to her own body and the right of self-preservation. Judith Jarvis Thomson stated that “Some [anti-abortionists] won’t even make an exception for a case in which continuation of the pregnancy is likely to shorten the mother’s life; they regard abortion as impermissible even to save the mother’s life” (Thomson, 2013, p. 298). These anti-abortionists renounce abortion even if it threatens the life of the woman, they see more value in the fetus than the woman.

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.

Thomson uses this story as an analogy to unwanted pregnancy. She argues that regardless of the violinist’s right to life, the kidnapped victim is under no moral obligation to carry the burden of the violinist, even if in denying his body to him, the inevitable consequence is the death of the violinist. The analogous counterpart is a woman who becomes pregnant by rape, failed contraceptives or any other involuntary cause. Hence becoming attached to another being whose survival now depends on her decision to stay connected (pregnant) for nine months or to disconnect (through abortion), leading the dependent being (the fetus) to die. By presenting this scenario, she aims to prove that a pregnant woman does not violate the fetus’ right to life by aborting any more than the kidnapped person violates the violinist’s right to

In Judith Jarvis Thompson’s article “A Defense of Abortion” she explores the different arguments against abortion presented by Pro –Life activists, and then attempts to refute these notions using different analogies or made up “for instances” to help argue her point that women do have the right to get an abortion. She explains why abortion is morally permissible using different circumstances of becoming pregnant, such as rape or unplanned pregnancy.

Once Thomson laid the foundation for her defense of abortion, she began explaining her views on weather a woman could abort a fetus conceived via rape. However, to make her point, she does not talk directly about a mother and her unborn child. Instead, she creates the analogy of a kidnapped person and a forcible attached violinist (Thomson 2). In this analogy, the kidnapped individual is a raped woman and the violinist is the conceived fetus. Thomson furthers this analogy by stating that the kidnapped person is the only one in the world that had a compatible blood type to become the violinist’s dialysis machine and there was no other way to save him. She explains that after only nine months the person would be free and the violinist would be healthy to go on his way. Despite being the good Samaritan thing to do, Thomson claims that the person does not have the moral obligation to stay attached to the violinist. She goes further to say that it would be outrageous to force this person to support the violinist because it seems absurd to put the violinist’s right to life above the right of the person to decide what happened to his/her body (Thomson 2). Considering this conclusion, there is a profound problem forcing a raped woman to carry a fetus conceived from that violation to term. In other words, the fetus’ right to life does not outweigh the mothers right to her body when she does not consent to the act leading to conception.

Many argue is it the women’s or the foetus’ rights and values that are being trampled on? “Pro-choice movements sometimes fall back on an abortion rhetoric that seems to dehumanize and trivialize the death of a foetus as a way to humanize and make important the reproductive rights of women.” (Wolf p54) “Women can treat an unwanted foetus as a violation of her civil rights and is therefor justified tin using force to expel it” (McMillan pA12) The decision is not up to the mother because she is not God. Only God, the ultimate creator has the right to choose who may live and who shall die. Humans do not have the right or the power to control the quality of life and to avoid suffering. “The issue of abortion is not just life, but how life is created and the extent to which human intention and control the process, both before and after birth.

Abortion is not only a woman's right, it is a woman's choice. Allowing abortion to e legal is immoral. A pre-born child is given the status of a product of pregnancy and never seen as the miracle only a woman can create. Compassion for the small one is drowned out under a demand for rights, but what about the rights for the unborn.

Almost all abortions occur during the first trimester when the fetus cannot live outside of the mother’s body. People who are pro-choice believe that “at birth, a baby is a human life. At conception, it 's something, perhaps, but it 's not really a human life (McDowell).” In other words when the baby has a heart beat it is not a human life. Or when the baby is kicking inside the mother’s womb it is not a human life. The child is not a human life until it is outside of the mother’s body. In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would possibly cause further psychological harm to the victim (Lowen). More often than not the woman who was sexually assaulted is too afraid to speak up against her attacker.