On Thomson 's A Defense Of Abortion Essay

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 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.

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

Thomson brings up the standard anti-abortion argument. Every person has a right to life. A fetus is a person. Which means a fetus has a right to life. Therefore abortion is wrong. Thomson does not understand the jump from a fetus having a right to life to abortion being wrong. She believes that the fetus being a person or not is irrelevant to the argument. And abortion is based more on the rights of the woman, fetus, and who has more of the right of ownership of the woman’s body (Thomson 47-48).

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.

While Thomson makes many different analogies in his essay “A Defense of Abortion”, none were as persuasive as the famous violinist analogy. In the analogy, Thomas paints the picture of someone being kidnapped and their kidneys being used to support the life of the violinist. Thomson uses this argument to represent the idea of a woman supporting the life of a child or fetus at the expense of their own. Thomson goes on to show the reader that the idea of unplugging yourself is not unjust, therefore “unplugging” yourself from a fetus is not unjust as well. The question of rape is also addressed with this analogy as the violinist is violating the victim’s body just as the rapist does. Thomson goes on to modify the analogy throughout the essay. The first modification to the analogy is that the act of supporting the violinist will kill you, just as sometimes birth may kill a woman. In either case, it is widely accepted that unplugging yourself or aborting the baby is within

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 assumes all fetuses have a right to life, but believes there are exceptions which permit abortions. Exceptions such as the mother’s life being at risk, rape, incest, ignorance of how you become pregnant, and contraceptive failure all in her opinion relieves you of the responsible of pregnancy, deeming it permissible to abort the fetus. Thomson uses a variety of analogies to support her theory, such as waking up one morning connected to a violinist who you are keeping alive by sharing your circulatory system. You did not agree to this, and are told you must stay connected for nine months or the violinist will die. Thomson explains how you were abducted and connected against your own will, similar to a rape victim. Which leads to her conclude it was not of your choosing to be plugged together and so it is your choice to unplug or not. She uses another analogy along the lines of failed contraceptive, stating you put up screens on your windows knowing

A way Thomson would respond to this argument brings me to my third point. Thomson would say that undoubtedly that the mother and the fetus both have a right to life, but not an equal one. “It

I take that she try to avoid criticisms by those who think fetus are people and to show even if fetus is person, abortion still morally permissible in certain circumstance. In the reading “Thomas” stated, “I am inclined to agree, however, that the prospects for “drawing a line’ in the development of the fetus look dim” (pg.241). Meaning, this is what pro-life want everyone to believe when it comes to abortions. “Thomson” speaks about the example of the different scenario of violinist in her book. In the online article, by Doris Gordon,” She was trying explaining that, unwanted pregnancy and the unconscious violinist are morally equivalent cases. She argues that neither the stranger nor the mother owes the needed life support; the stranger may unplug himself from the violinist, and the mother may unplug herself from her child”. Meaning, if any person was rape and didn’t want to keep the baby they, should have the say so in end the pregnancy. Every woman should have and say so to their body without the society putting into and person mind they are and ‘murder’ if they end and unwanted pregnancy. In an online article by

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

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

Thomson’s main idea is to show why Pro-Life Activists are wrong in their beliefs. She also wants to show that even if the fetus inside a women’s body had the right to life (as

Since the practice of abortion has began there has always been the question of whether it was the killing of an innocent person or saving the life of one that already exists. The common person sees abortion in two different ways being it is or it is not a form of murder. Abortion used as a medical term is defined as the “termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.” This paper will discuss an argument in A Defense of Abortion by Judith Jarvis Thomson where some cases for instance defending ones own life gives moral cause for abortion and also make claims to refute all circumstance of abortion.

The baby has grown so quickly that if nothing is done soon, you will be crushed and the baby will eventually burst out of the house unharmed. Following the commentary she offers on why this experiment supports women’s rights of self preservation, Thomson makes the assertion that the child and woman are not both tenants in the house, but that the woman owns the house. This analogy to women having a right to their own body, as Thomson points out, provides a strong counter argument to the belief that no one may decide between the life of the fetus and the mother. As I must as well, Thomson dismisses the view that our bodies are “on loan” to us and that we therefore have no prior claim to it. I am, and many others are, inclined to agree with Thomson’s assertion that if human beings have prior claim to anything, it is to their own