Is Abortion Morally Permissible?

In Judith Jarvis Thomson’s philosophy paper, A Defense of Abortion, she argues that abortion is permissible because an individual’s right over their own body outweighs a fetus’s right to life. In this paper I will focus on whether or not abortion is always permissible. First, I will present Thomson’s argument which says that abortion is sometimes permissible. I will do so by describing her “famous violinist” thought experiment. Next, I will object to Thomson’s claim and expand the scope of her argument by arguing that abortion is in fact, always permissible. I will do so by presenting a new thought experiment. Finally, I will conclude in saying that Thomson is correct and abortion is in fact only sometimes permissible.

Abortion is defined as “The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.” (Oxford Dictionary). Nearly three out of ten women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45-years-old (Planned Parenthood). Abortion is morally permissible because an abortion prevents a woman and the potential child’s suffering. Abortion is moral because it is a fundamental right of competent adults to make their own decisions on the course of their medical treatment, can alleviate further suffering in immoral cases, such as rape and is protected by rule of law.

When the beginning of life actually occurs is clearly not a topic to be taken lightly in today’s modern world. Majority of the population’s answers to this question are based on each individuals opinion and is supported by what they believe. In general, there are two sides of the argument. One is that life begins at the time of conception. The other belief is that life doesn’t begin until the drawing of the first breath. The true dilemma here is not the accurate pinpointing of life’s beginning, but the questions that accompany this topic and each individuals desire to do the right thing, the moral thing. While one point of view allows for abortion the other does not. The issue raises many questions of morality. Is abortion moral? When does it become murder? When is it permissible? (Life of the mother at stake / A product of rape). Should it be the mother’s choice? Many arguments for both sides pull from scripture and scientific articulations.

The debate about the legality of abortion involves debating the legal status of the fetus. If the fetus is a person, anti-choice activists argue, then abortion is murder and should be illegal. Even if the fetus is a person, though, abortion may have justified as necessary to women’s body self-govern but that wouldn’t mean that abortion is automatically ethical. Perhaps the state can’t force women to carry pregnancies to term, but it could argue that it is the most ethical choice.

The public debate over abortion in the United States has intensified since the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. Advocates on each side of the debate often hint that we must select between two stark options: “Pro-life” and “Pro-choice.” Strong pro-life advocates claim that abortion is immoral (except perhaps in a few cases) because the fetus is a human being from the

In “A Defense of Abortion", Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that a life is a life regardless if it was still in the fetus. Possibly the best argument that was made by Thomson was that a fetus has already been a human person long before birth. In this Paper, I will argue that this argument fails because a life should be consider living when it is “conscious”.

The argument in the passage is whether or not abortion is permissible. The author state many times throughout the passage that abortion is wrong for a varying amount of reasons, but at times the passage can be confusing. The author tries to clarify as to what is a person and non-person, but within this part of the passage it become cloudy and could use some rewording to make it more clear to the readers on their stance on what makes a person. To make it more clear to the readers the author should have made the sentences less wordy and straight to the point. Also, the points about what makes the fetus a person are lacking in some strenght. Overall it was a clear conclusion that abortion should not be permissible.

47). Anti-abortion proponents argue that fetuses are persons, and since all persons have a right to life, a fetus also possess a right to life. The author compares this position to an acorn and an oak tree, and it does not follow that an acorn is an oak tree (p. 47). The common counter argument is to the conception premise is to pick and arbitrary point in fetal development and say that it is ok to terminate a pregnancy before this point because the fetus is not yet a person. Thomson acknowledges that this arbitrary point in development is difficult to defend in argument but also thinks that a fetus becomes a person at some point before birth, she compares the right to life with the right to vote, “If children are left to develop normally the will have a right to vote; that does not show that they now have the right to vote.”

However, the pro-choice or the activists for abortions, argue that if a family is in a state of financial trouble, then abortion should be a practical option. Otherwise, the child would be born into a life of suffering, and inadequate living conditions. The pro-choice believers, bases their beliefs, upon the fact that having an abortion is the inalienable right of women. They believe that by outlawing abortions, women aren’t allowed to practice their freedom of privacy. In a way, women are being denied their constitutional rights. Many pro-choice activists also state that abortion is justifiable, because at the time of fertilization the ensuing embryo is not yet a human being. It is not a human being, but a potential one. Therefore, its death does not constitute a murder. Pro-choice activists’

The moral question of abortion, is abortion morally permissible? The question has been a concern for many philosophers in the contemporary world. In general, abortion is a very fragile topic for people all over the world, especially for people who consider themselves to be pro-life and rest on the claim that a fetus is a person and that “every person has a right to life” (48). This is the premise of opposition to abortion that most people rely on. That premise would only work if, and only if, we all can agree on if the fetus is considered a human. If the fetus is considered a human then we can logically say that abortion is impermissible because we would be taking a life; conversely, if the fetus is not a person then abortion would be allowed. Such is not a perfect world where everything is black and white, free thinking gives people strong opinions about when life begins causing two sides of Thomson’s argument. Being open minded like every great philosopher should, Thomson stands in between the fence and claims the conclusion that abortion is permissible under certain circumstances and that there are scenarios in which getting an abortion is considered impermissible. Thomson’s argument does a great job in explaining her reason through the use of eight thought experiments to support her main claim and I will critique her reasoning and create objections to her claim for the purpose of a wholesome critique and to leave the readers to decide where the extension of their morals/ethics lies to pick a side in this controversial topic.

“On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”, an essay written by Mary Anne Warren, defend abortion in any stage of a woman’s pregnancy (pg 468). Warren argues that the potential to become a human being is not the same as being human and deserving the same right to life (pg. 468-472). This essay asserts that in order to be human, one must possess five particular traits (pg. 470). These trait are consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the ability to communicate, and awareness of oneself (pg. 470). Warren claims that since a fetus has not yet acquired all of the traits, then that fetus is not human and therefore does not have the right to life (pg. 470).

Abortion is morally permissible in all cases; regardless of how the pregnancy came about. The question of whether the fetus is granted personhood at conception or anytime during its development is entirely irrelevant. The right to control your own body often trumps someone’s right to life. Even if you declare personhood to the fetus, it does not determine the morality of abortion. Whether it is “killing an innocent child” or not does not take away the fact that this country has time and time again proven that the right to control our property nevertheless our body is much more weighted on the scale of what has more value when put up against an individual’s right to life. Just like how you can not be forced to donate a kidney to save

Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the world - Planned Parenthood- argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine:

Morality is often used to argue against the use of abortion and the termination of the fetus. The basic argument made against abortion is that the unborn fetus has rights and becomes a human (inherently born with rights) the moment of conception. The morality of abortion, however, can become a bit murky with issues such as rape or incest. Because of this, other important aspects of morality must be examined, such as whether the life of the mother is worth more than that of the fetus as well as the inherent value that should be placed on the health and wellbeing of the woman. Additionally, child abandonment contributes to the arguments surrounding abortion. Strict regulation of abortion can be detrimental to poor, less developed nations and

Mary Anne Warren’s argument on the legal status of abortion stands on a concrete understanding and realization of an individual’s personhood. Now Mary Anne Warren’s unyielding argument on the basis of personhood is that, “If we assume that an entity is a person just because it happens to belong to our favored biological classification, we stand convicted of speciesism, close cousin to racism. There are properties that do qualify an entity as a person, but simply being human is not one of them” (124). To first be able to argue why the abortion of a fetus is permissible she needs to give a clear distinction of what can be established a decisive factor of personhood. To distinguish a line between a fetus and a human and if abortion is to be morally