My View On Abortion And Abortion

The goal of Judith Jarvis Thomson in her defense of abortion is to sway the ideas of those who are against abortion by challenging the arguments they give for thinking so. She begins by stating a premise. “For the sake of the argument” a human embryo is a person. This premise is one of the arguments most opponents of abortion use, but as she points out, isn’t much of an argument at all. These people spend a lot of their time dwelling on the fact that the fetus is a person and hardly any time explaining how the fetus being a person has anything to with abortion being impermissible. In the same breath, she states that those who agree with abortion spend a lot of their time

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.

Second, the author uses her “expanding child” example. “Trapped in a tiny house with a growing child and you are up against a wall, and in a few minutes, you will be crushed, on the other hand the child won’t be crushed. The only thing that will save her life is to kill the child. Is abortion permissible to save the pregnant woman’s life? Because the mother being compared to that of the house, this brings up the idea that the mother should be able to do as she pleases with her body, and that her body carries more significance than the fetus’ right to life. This brings in the argument of a third-party intervention, such as a doctor. If a doctor did not agree to perform an abortion, to save this mother, then the mother would be denied her rights, and the right to decide what is done with her body. If a woman doesn’t have a right to their body, then you should not be unplugged, thus, save the violinists life. This reasoning is concluded with two smart statements, “It seems to me that to treat the matter in this very way (refuse abortion for the mother’s health) is to refuse to grant the very status of person which is so firmly insisted on for the fetus by anti-abortion advocates. (243) and “a fetus who existence is due to rape” has no right to use their mother’s bodies, and aborting them is not depriving them of anything they had a

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 her article, “The Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson states an analogy involving a violinist. She first states that you are allowed to unplug yourself in the violinist scenario, second abortion after rape is analogous to the violinist scenario, therefore, you should be allowed to unplug yourself and be allowed to abort after rape (Chwang, Abortion slide 12). In this paper, I will argue that abortion is morally acceptable even if the fetus is considered a person. This paper will criticize premise two from the traditional argument against abortion string that killing innocent persons is wrong (Chwang, Abortion slide 9). Following the violinist analogy will be an objection to this analogy and my respons to them. One of the

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

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.

Now on a different note, Thomson's main argument is set out to undermine the anti-abortionist argument. The anti-abortionist argument states: Every person has a right to life, the fetus is a person and hence has a right to life. The mother has the right to control her own body, but the fetuses' right to life is stronger than her right to control her body. Therefore, abortion is wrong. How Thomson goes about this is through analogies, and her main argument is through her violinist argument. Thomson asks you imagine that you find yourself hooked up to a famous unconscious violinist. If he can't use your kidneys for nine months, he'll die.

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.

Judith Jarvis Thomson argues in her essay A Defense of Abortion, that abortions should be allowed, and furthermore that women have a right to them. She offers several examples of cases in an attempt to prove her view. The first is the violinist argument, in which a woman awakens to find a famous violinist has been attached to her. The violinist is dependent on her kidneys and to detach him would kill him. This scenario is an analogy to a situation in which a woman was raped and a pregnancy resulted.

In discussions of abortion, a controversial issue has been whether abortion is morally permissible. According to anti-abortionists, abortion is the killing of an innocent fetus and is therefore not morally permissible. According to Judith Jarvis Thomson, however, abortion is not morally wrong in most cases and she attacks the anti-abortionist argument. Therefore, they disagree on whether abortion is morally permissible or not. In this paper, I will outline the anti-abortionists argument in numbered premise-conclusion form and show which premise Thomson attacks. After that, I will summarize her thought experiments and defend Thomson’s argument against two possible objections from the anti-abortionists.

One argument against this analogy is the violinist and abortion has many differences. Assuming that the Thomson’s case is a large analogy, one can argue that a fetus and the mother have a biological connection together, while the violinist and the abducted person are artificially connected. Therefore, there is a major difference between the two. However, this relationship is not a sound argument to provide relevance to the moral permissibility. Moreover, one can argue the analogy used in this case is not an argument. The counterexample does not use the analogy to make the whole argument. If the analogy is not included in the counterexample, the counterexample will still be just as effective because violinist in her counterexample can be replaced with a fetus. This word swap will retain the same idea. The moral standing of this case provide sufficient proof that this counterargument was successful at disproving the target argument premise

How would you feel if u weren 't given a chance of life and someone decided to just give you up and kill you? Approximately 125,000 abortions occur per day. 1.1 million U.S. abortions each year. Nearly 1 in 4 (22%) of pregnancies end in abortion. 50% of women now seeking abortion have had at least one previous abortion. The U.S. abortion rate is among the highest of developed countries. 51% of abortions are performed on women less than 25 years of age. Approximately 1/3 of American women have had an abortion by age 45. Abortion disproportionately affects black and Hispanic women. (Alan Guttmacher Institute). When it comes to abortion it is one of the most important issues in the world. Some people believe that abortion is sinful because

Some find this view appealing because it assures objectivity to ethics (thus avoiding Ethical Relativism, Ethical Emotivism, and Ethical Subjectivism). This gives ethics a stability, clarity, and universality that many find attractive. This theory sufficiently gives a clear moral direction and an adequate sense of duty. The bible clearly states that human life was originally created in the womb, so why do those precious babies not have rights to their own life? Are they or are they not God’s creation? God created human and commanded against committing murder. Murder, in this case, would be the innocent unborn human living in the mother's womb. The divine command theory would support that it is our duty to ensure that the human life, whether it is an adult or a baby in a womb, be given life and not have it taken away. It would be morally wrong and bad to do so. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong and unjustified. The theory says a child was given to us as a gift. It also allows us to believe that if our child had an abnormality of any kind, that it was meant to be and that that is what makes our child special. It forces us to believe that abortion would be wrong or immoral because the child was sent to us for a reason.

Comfort uses ethos, pathos, and logos to support the main argument. He utilizes rhetorical context and rhetoric to support the arguments. The main argument Comfort portrays is that abortion is similar to the Holocaust. The Nazi, Adolf Hitler, needed to destroy all Jews as a part of the plan to overcome the world (Berenbaum, 2013, p. 296). Hitler’s is known for heading the terrible event called the Holocaust. Abortion is killing millions of humans which is why it is similar to the Holocaust. Abortion is America’s Holocaust and people must be informed of this.