Summary: A Defense Of Abortion

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 “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.

In her article, A Defense of Abortion, American moral philosopher and metaphysician Judith Jarvis Thomson uses analogies to explain scenarios in which abortion is morally permissible, even when the fetus is granted personhood at conception. She addresses the argument that every person has a right to life, the fetus is a person, and therefore the fetus has a right to life; and the mother has a right to choose what happens with her body, but the mother’s right to decide what happens is not as strong as a person’s right to life and therefore, abortion is morally impermissible. She believes this to be incorrect based on the definition of the right to life-which she defines as the right

Ellen Willis’s “Putting Women Back into the Abortion Debate” (2005) is an argument that supports women’s rights and feminism in terms of allowing all abortions to occur. She discusses abortion with the perspective that women’s rights are the issue, not human life. This argument is not accurate. Abortion is almost completely about the rights of every human being. People who are for abortion need to know a fertilized egg is just as important as someone already living, that an unborn child cannot control its need for someone to rely on for survival, and that they must accept the gender they were given without thinking it eliminates rights. Excluding rape and incest, abortion should not be allowed.

In the article A Defense of Abortion written by Judith Jarvis Thompson, examples as to whether abortion is acceptable or not are given. Interestingly enough, Thompson never formally states her opinion about abortion being right or wrong. She likes to speak on behalf of both points of view. Thompson argues abortion is acceptable when given the situation, like being raped. On the other hand though, Thompson agrees that abortion is not right because the fetus has the right to live a life of its own, whether with the biological mom or an adoptive mom. Everyone deserves a chance at life.

For the second half of the semester the topic that impressed me the most has to be abortion. There are those who agree that abortion should be allowed since it is the right of the woman’s body, which would be the pro-choice supporters. Then there are those people who believe it is morally wrong to kill an innocent life regardless of how far into the pregnancy the woman is; the pro-life supporters. Like any other debate or moral issue problem there is always a middle ground, which is where I stand. It is not a surprise that there is continuous debate for this given that religion intersects at some point in defense of pro-life. Generally speaking, the issue begins when people define abortion differently than others as well as when the fetus

In A Defense of Abortion, Judith Thomson’s statement against abortion constructs on her agreement that fetus is a human being, for the sake of argument, therefore has the right to life. She shows that the basic argument against abortion is inadequate. The basic argument of abortion goes: the first premise is that every person has right to life; the second premise is that the fetus is a human being; the conclusion is that the abortion is impermissible. Thomson found this statement invalid, because the conclusion does not actually follow from the premises. She demonstrates that there is a suppressed premise in this argument. Her reconstruction of the argument goes: 1) every person has right to life; 2) the fetus is a human being; 3) the fetus’s right to life is stronger than the mother’s right to determine what happens in and to her own body; 4) therefore the abortion is impermissible.

Philosophers, lawyers, theologians and others have devoted and continue to devote their lives to study of the ethics of abortion. Since abortion was legalized, the abortion debate has intensified, and does not show any signs of being resolved anytime soon. The idea’s that advocate the women’s right to abort or the proactive logic that supports the pro-life view and the fundamental identity of the baby all come in hand when looking at the ethics of abortion .American philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thompson and american philosopher Don Marquis both came up with very good arguments to support what they believe.

What is the life of a fetus worth in your eyes? It may seem like a simple answer at first thought, but what if said fetus had a name? Or what if that fetus was your child to be? Famed moral philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson attempted to address these sorts of questions in her landmark essay, “A Defense of Abortion.” However, I believe that Thomson’s argument is misguided. Thomson uses questionable premises to assert questionable conclusions and thus, I believe that her argument is misguided. My argument follows as such:

In her article “A Defense Against Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thomson explores the permissibility of abortion through both the rights of a fetus and of a woman, and further argues that abortion is sometimes permissible under circumstantial situations. Thomson offers multiple thought-experiments, but the one I am focusing on in my paper is her burglar-based argument. In short, this situation involves you leaving your window open, knowingly increasing the risk of a burglar entering your home. She further adds that you have implemented bars on the windows with the specific intent to keep burglars out, but the bars are defective and allow the burglar to make his way in. This situation is analogous to a woman intentionally having sexual

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.

In the reading “In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide,” Michael Tooley argued why he thinks abortion as well as infanticide is ok. His main argument was that, “An entity cannot have a right to life unless it is capable of having an interest in its own continued existence.” He appealed to Joel Fienburg’s interest principle. Tooley says that a zygote cannot be spoken of as a subject of interest or have desires, therefore a zygote cannot have a right to life.

An incredibly prevalent subject in the media today, abortion and a women’s right to choose has graced newsstands, social media platforms, and even the presidential debates. As such a controversial topic, abortion has a certain stigma attached to it. Viewed often as this “black and white” topic, many philosophy articles have been written about the grey area that seems to surround this argument, writing either for or against the topic. A particularly well known piece that does just that, argues that a fetus’s right to life does not trump a woman’s right to have control over her own body. “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thomson Pro life versus

Thomson in her essay titled “A Defense of Abortion,” points out her view that abortion can be permissible when a woman is not in control of her own body. One of Thomson’s analogies that ambiguously connects with her general position of this case of abortion is the famous violinist analogy. This analogy consists on that you were kidnapped or just wake up plugged into the violinist and it needed your kidneys for nine months to live, and if you unplug yourself from the violinist, he will die. Thomson steaks with the right to life and control of one's body in her essay which her point starts to fail because, with this analogy as she spoke, you may help the violinist by keeping connected the 9 months. So the right to life is given and the right

Thomson’s article “A Defense Against Abortion” does raise several interesting, if abstract, moral questions. Thomson believes that even if a fetus is fully human and in possession of certain rights, the rights of the child should not be imposed on a woman’s liberty. This question of freedom and basic human rights pervades every side of Thomson’s argument and creates another set of ethical considerations for us to consider. These considerations raise many interesting questions. Is there a different moral obligation to your child than to a stranger? Is allowing someone to die different from purposefully causing them to die? Is liberty limitless or should we be morally obligated to give up that liberty when others are in danger? These questions