Don Marquis Abortion

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 disagreement many people say that one person's right to life always outweighs another person's right to autonomy. However Thomson's argument makes a very interesting unwanted pregnancies resulting in permissible abortions. To counteract her claims I'm going to use a hypothetical situation as she did. Let's say a mother gives birth to a set of conjoined twins. The twins grow up having a somewhat troublesome life considering the fact that neither one has the opportunity to achieve autonomy. Once they get older, lets say age 18, twin A obtains the information that twin B's survival depends on the use of twin A's vital organ's. However twin A would survive if twin B was too be separated from him thus granting twin A his right to autonomy. It seems that it is obvious that it not permissible for twin A to kill twin B. The following argument shows a more concrete view of the situation. It is morally impermissible for twin A to kill twin B if he has the right to life and the right to twin A's body. Twin B does have a right to life. Twin B prima facie has

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

Marquis approaches his argument by considering those already put forth by anti-abortionist and pro-choice alike. He points out that both points of view focus on the status of the fetus; in particular they seek to establish whether or not a fetus is a person. He reasons that when paralleled, these arguments produce a sort of “standoff” that ultimately become more complicated and trivial (556). Looking for biological and/or physiological features to determine when a being is is a true “person” is morally irrelevant, and thus cannot

“If X has a future like ours of great value and killing X deprives X of that future, then killing X is morally wrong.” (Marquis). So, Thomson’s sake of argument doesn’t really relate to Marquis’ since Thomson is basing her argument off whether a fetus is a person or not and is saying that it is permissible to take that life but Marquis argues on the view that the fetus has a future like ours and by taking an abortion you are depriving the fetus of a future. I find Marquis reasoning to be more valuable since depriving one from a future like everyone else’s is a very big wrong doing. A woman does have a right to her body but her decision cannot outweigh the killing off a fetus unless in a rare

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.

Thompson’s first account of the right to life follows a scenario where a woman is pregnant but will die if she carries the baby to term. Thompson makes it clear that for the sake of argument she will consider a fetus a human from the point of conception, therefore giving the fetus a right to life equivalent to that of the mother. In the scenario given, however, Thompson argues that the mother is logically able to make an act of self-defence in order to save herself, and since both her and the baby are innocent, bystanders may not intervene to stop the killing of the fetus. Thompson reasons that perhaps the extreme view of abortion may be reduced to state that abortion is permissible to save the mother’s life, but the mother must perform the abortion on herself in order for it to count as an act of self-defence. However, by leveraging the coat analogy, Thompson proves that it is logically

In fact, she believes that even if the fetus is considered a human then abortion can indeed still be morally justified. She justifies this through the analogy in which you must imagine a situation in which a violinist with a fatal kidney disease has been artificially hooked up to you in order to use your kidneys for nine months against your will by a third part, the Society of Music Lovers. Thomson links the issue of abortion to this situation by indicating that if you unplugged yourself from this violinist, he would die, and in that sense you would be responsible for his death. Thus, are you obligated to not unplug yourself to allow the violinist to prosper? Thomson debates that detaching from the violinist is justifiable for he threatens “her bodily autonomy,” opening her reasoning for why it is morally

Francis J. Beckwith, a philosopher and professor at Baylor University, claims that Thomson is assuming a philosophical stance that appears to be correct only because it denies the entire position of those against abortion. Beckwith claims Thomson’s position to be one of moral duty only when you have chosen them. Truly, Thomson must not see the fetus as human as we can visibly see in the unspoken beliefs that cloud her analogies. Such as in the case of the intruder in the house, Thomson implies that no one would argue the right to remove, even if it includes serious harm, a burglar from their own home. Yet, Beckwith argues that this premise undermines the entire position of fetus as human since anyone knows “intruders come in a variety of types.” He takes the stand that a fetus is not a knowing intruder, but instead a “non-willing inhabitant of the only environment that is designed to shelter, feed, and sustain him, with his presence there being the consequence of agents having engaged in an act intrinsically ordered to bring such beings into existence.” Thus, if Thomson was truly taking the perspective of the fetus as human, her analogies would not view the fetus as less than human or a simple annoyance, but would take the stand of the fetus as a child with basic human

Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that a fetus does not have a right to use the body of a woman, therefore abortion should be permissible since the fetus is not being killed unjustly. I shall contradict Thomson’s argument because it states abortion is a just killing and lists scenarios that cannot compare to the severity of abortion in order to justify the liberal view on abortion.

In “Defense of Abortion” one of Thomson’s arguments is that fetus has a right to life but does not necessarily means the fetus have a right to the mother’s body. She tries to justify this point by using the “famous violinist” scenario. Some one is kidnapped and attached to a violinist with a fatal kidney problem and being attached to the kidnapped persons circulatory system can only save him. Which means that the same as the fetus the violinist also have a right to life but does not have the right to use the other person’s body to stay alive, unless the kidnapped person gives his consent. Now in the case of the fetus having permission to use the mother’s body is ridiculous because first of all it is impossible for the fetus to ask for any consent

This argument is intended to show two different things: (1) that abortion is morally ok in the case of rape and (2) that the prolife argument fails. Thomson thinks that the right

It is argued that having an abortion is immoral and cannot be justified by any means. I strongly disagree with this statement and fully support Thomson for defending the rights of an abortion. While exploring Marquis’ effort to deny the rights of an abortion, I will carefully analyze both arguments and demonstrate that the act of an abortion is justifiable. I believe both arguments cannot successfully satisfy all cases, and to make a stronger argument, I would add on that there are drastic limits to the rights of an abortion. Thomas would agree with this as well.

The argument of abortion is largely circumstanced around whether or not a fetus should be considered as a human person and, if indeed it is, when exactly in the stages of development can a person agree with the aforementioned statement. Most pro-life supporters firmly believe that a fetus is a human at the instance of conception and use this as a sole basis to argue that abortion is therefore immoral. Judith Jarvis Thomson is not convinced that this basis is a sufficient defense and approaches the argument by modifying a generic view on abortion. In the article, "A Defense of Abortion," Thomson makes the assumption that a fetus is, in fact, a human person upon conception and has a right to life. She then claims that even if this notion is

Unlike Marquis, Thomson 's famous article defended abortion. Based on her premises, the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Thomson main argument in the article the right of the fetus life is not absolutely right. Thus, she defended that abortion is morally acceptable in some cases by talking about “The violinist experiment”, The Burglar and The Case of the People-Seeds. “Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No dough the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person’s right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.”(Thomson, page438) Thomson talks about true premises. Every person has a right to life and everyone has the right to control their body. A mother has the right to choose what will happen to her body, but a life is more important. Therefore, the true premises have right