Pro-Child / Pro-Choice: An Exercise in Doublethink? by Judith A. Boss

In this paper I am going to critically evaluate “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Thompson, a moral philosopher and metaphysician, who argues that is morally okay to abort a fetus even if the fetus is considered a person and contrast it to another moral philosopher and utilitarian, Peter Singer who deems her argument to be flawed.

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

The issue of abortion has always been a controversial one for citizens of the United States. Abortion is the practice of terminating a pregnancy after the embryo has been planted in the uterus (Abortion). An individual’s stance on this controversial issue categorizes them into one of two very different groups. An individual who feels that a woman should not have an abortion- due to moral or religious views- is said to be “pro-life”. Coincidently, those who feel that a woman should have the right to choose abortion are said to be “pro-choice”. “Pro-life” supporters point to the practice of abortion as an immoral one. Supporters state abortion is immoral because it takes away the rights of the unborn fetus, since activists consider human

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.

To put it simply, an abortion is defined as, the intentional termination of a pregnancy most often preformed before the third trimester (within weeks 1-28). The controversy over abortions usually stems from the difficulty between individuals to agree on a set of conditions that would constitute ones’ decision, to abort as just. This issue is examined by many philosophers, particularly, Judith Thomson and Don Marquis. Both philosopher’s views loosely encompass the complex underlying beliefs of those who stand behind the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” arguments. Tomson and Marquis demonstrate the very distinctively different perspectives one could take on the issue. Don Marquis suggests that fetuses, being persons, possess the right to a “future like ours” and that it would be wrong to intentionally impede on “the life that I would have lived if I had lived out my natural lifespan” except for in “rare circumstances”. While, Tomson asserts that not all abortions are morally wrong, nor do they “violate the victim’s right to life”, and by having one that is in no way indicative that a fetus’s rights have been violated. Despite the fact that both philosophers present valid positions, and outline their key differences, Tomson goes far beyond Marquis’ efforts by illustrating that the way in which we view abortions ought to be redefined in order for one to maintain a clear perspective.

While parts of both may be true, both cannot stand side by side as completely true when discussing abortion. As they stand today, fetus rights and female rights are incompatible in arena of abortion. Even the “other side” agrees that the two cannot stand shoulder to shoulder. In a chapter entitled “Abortion Does Not Violate Human Rights”, Christian Beenfeldt quotes Brian McKinely when claiming that female rights have a higher precedence than fetus rights: “It’s actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other.” So one question remains, which more important, fetus rights or female rights? The winner of this question can be decided by one simple factor: is the fetus to be considered a true, living human being at the point of conception, or does true human life not begin until after birth? A clarification should be made here, however. In this paper it will be assumed that everyone involved in this debate considers a newborn child to be a human being. That is, at the moment of birth, a child either becomes a human being or continues to be a human being; regardless of the fetus’s life state before birth, it will be assumed that all agree that birth “confirms”, so to speak, the life and human existence of the newborn.

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.

Using a new and intriguing approach, Don Marquis refutes many of pro-choice claims, including the likes of Thomson and Warren, by not arguing whether a fetus is a person or if it has moral rights, but rather justifying the fact that the unborn child has a future and it would be immoral of us to deprive the child of it. Marquis makes it very clear to the readers that he in no way shape or form is for abortion, and is only okay with it under certain circumstances. Subsequent to distinctly stating his position, he explains beliefs that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers differ on which are whether a fetus is a person from the moment it is conceived and whether it obtaining more human characteristics has an effect on the decision. After carefully dissecting both sides argument logically he concludes that one side is way too broad with their statements and the other is just way too vague to make a final decision, so he looks into another aspect overall, whether the action of aborting is considered murder if at all.

Opposers of abortion argue that since a fetus is alive, they should also be given the ability to live and create a life for themselves. They also argue that the harm inflicted results in the murder of a person’s life, which would then bring unhappiness to several individuals debunking the idea that happiness and morality for society is found in individualism. Yet, Planned Parenthood and activists that support the mother's reproductive rights do not all believe a fetus is alive, and that a mother, whose life is affected by this baby, should be the final decider on whether to keep it or

In “A Defense of Abortion” written by Judith Jarvis Thomson, the author analyzes premises for which she believes that abortion should be permissible, but argues in some cases abortion should also not be allowed. Her analysis is different from most papers on this subject, because she immediately throws the argument of if the fetus is a person out the window. She calls it a “slippery slope argument”(Thomson 54). Thomson, instead, presents that a fetus does have the right to life, but she uses thought experiments that show the fetus’s right to life does not trump the mother's right to life. In this paper, I am going to discuss Thomson’s arguments, possible objections to her argument, and provide an answer for the objection using the author’s

Over the years controversies on abortion was a salient issue and today the topic still remain the debate, said Driedger, Leo, and Shiva S. Halli. Ongoing debate whether if it right or wrong to end a life causes tension worldwide. Pro-choice argue that it’s their right to decide whether abortion is the option. Determining whether the abortion is a right or wrong, the decision depends on an individual believe, situation, and preference according to NARAL Pro-choice America staff in 2016. Pregnancy occurs from sexual activity whether voluntary participating or un-consensual, but when pregnancy resulted unexpectedly women may seek abortion. Some common reasons why women have an abortion are because too young, victim of rape or incest, contraceptive failure, financial issue, inconvenient, career priority, and without any reason abortion would be an easier decision according to Driedger, Leo, and Shiva S. Halli. Pro-Choice is a movement act that allows women rights to terminate pregnancy base on the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case in 1973, said FedWorld official webpage 2016.

In Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion,” she states that the mother’s right to life can be greater than that of the fetus. I disagree with this premise because the fetus has a right to life, and it is the mother’s natural responsibility, or obligation, to take care of her child. This issue is very relevant in modern society and occurs on a daily basis, so I am inclined to view my objection (as well as Thomson’s argument) as important influences on others’ current positions. In this paper, I will argue that there is not a defense of abortion due to the fact that conception of a fetus, or child, is natural and is an obligation to be taken care of. A child conceived is a natural circumstance or occurrence.

While thorough, Marquis’ argument oversimplifies the comparison between the immorality of killing an innocent adult and the (supposed) immorality of killing a fetus; thus, he erroneously commits moral equivalency. Marquis equates these two creatures on the premise that both share the sufficient feature that makes killing wrong: the loss of a future of value. However, the conclusion that follows, that having an abortion is as wrong as killing an innocent adult, is not sound. Marquis neglects important considerations that make these actions morally distinct, and is therefore guilty of using a false analogy. Arguably the most morally relevant difference between these individuals, is that an adult is an autonomous being, whereas a fetus is fully dependent on the mother. Therefore, abortion is a two-person issue, and as such, we cannot evaluate a singular future-of-value as we would in an instance of an adult’s murder.

Based on the view that the fetus is already a small baby, some extreme anti-abortionists would maintain that abortion is impermissible even to save the mothers life. The rationale behind this view would be that the child is innocent, and killing the child would be active, on the other hand, letting the mother die would be passive. This introduces two new concepts, the first being the mother’s rights in competition to those of the fetus and the second being the question of innocence and how we would define this (Langley).

A long on-going subject that has been greatly debated in our society is abortion. Many people argue that because the baby in the mother’s womb is not alive, aborting him or her is not considered a murder. However, others say that as the baby’s heart and brain are the first things to develop, the baby is technically alive and killing it would be a murder. As soon as the baby has a heartbeat, it has life. Abortion has many characteristics of a murder, including the killing of one human being by another, it’s unethical, and it is done without the consent of the person.