The Argument Of Defending Abortion

To begin with, Thomson uses a thought experiment about a hypothetical famous violinist, to further her argument that abortion is morally permissible. In this thought experiment, you are kidnapped and unconsciously plugged to a famous violinist so that your kidney can remove toxins from the violinist’s kidney and ultimately save his life. Thomson argues that you are not required to stay plugged to the famous violinist even if unplugging yourself from the violinist would result in his death. Thomson argues that while everyone has the right to life, no one has the right to dictate what happens to another person 's body.

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.

Judith Jarvis Thomson and Don Marquis both have different views on abortion. Thomson believes that in some cases, abortion is morally permissible, due to the life of the mother. Marquis believes that abortion is almost always morally impermissible, except in extreme circumstances, because the fetus has a future life. I will simply evaluate each of the authors reasoning’s that defend their belief, and give my argument for why I believe Judith Thomson’s essay is more convincing.

defends that abortion is a morally sound action. Don Marquis, in his essay An Argument that Abortion is Wrong, takes the opposite stance. He claims “that abortion, except perhaps in rare instances, is seriously wrong”.

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 the paper titled “A Defense of Abortion” Judith Thomson uses several premises to bring the readers to the conclusion that Abortion is not morally wrong. After reading her paper I have concluded, that abortion is in fact morally wrong, excluding extenuating circumstances. In this paper I will show that abortion is morally wrong by way of the following argument:

Thomson’s argument, “A Defense on Abortion,” is a piece written to point out the issues in many arguments made against abortion. She points out specific issues in arguments made, for example, about life beginning at conception and if that truly matters as an argument against abortion. Thomson uses multiple analogies when making her points against the arguments made against abortion. These analogies are used to show that the arguments made do not really make sense in saying it is immoral to have an abortion. These analogies do not work in all cases, and sometimes they only work in very atypical cases, but still make a strong argument. There are also objections made to Thomson’s argument, which she then replies to, which makes her argument even stronger. Her replies to these arguments are very strong, saying biology does not always equate responsibility, and that reasonable precaution is an important factor in the morality of abortion. There are some major issues in her responses to these objections.

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.

Thomson defends the idea that consensual sex does not make an abortion an unjust killing. She answers a hypothetical position that if a woman “voluntarily calls [a fetus] into existence, how can she now kill it, even in self-defense?” (195) Thomson concedes that “pending… further argument” (196) an abortion can only be defended when the pregnancy is the result of rape. Her answer to this argument is the burglar analogy. She imagines a woman who voluntarily opens the window to her house. In doing so, she enables a burglar to sneak through her window. Thomson argues that despite incurring partial responsibility for the burglar inhabiting her living room, “having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in” (196), she still does not have an obligation to let him stay. Furthermore, she asserts that installing bars on the windows (alluding to birth control) does not change the burden

Thomson begins her defense of abortion unconventionally with the acceptance of the opposing assumption that the fetus is an innocent person from the moment of conception “for the sake of argument.” (47) By adopting the primary argument against abortion, Thomson avoids the conundrum of having to prove whether a fetus is a person with rights to life, something that Mary Anne Warren’s essay “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” struggles to clarify. By assuming a fetus is indeed an innocent person that has a right to life, Thomson can proceed with her arguments without the inherent weakness in arbitrarily defining personhood.

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’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

She begins her argument with her counterpart’s argument that is commonly used in defense of pro-life. Their premises are that every person has a right to life, and believe a fetus is a person, therefore a fetus has the right to life. So, Abortion goes against the fetus’ rights and therefore is impermissible. Thomson believes her argument would bring greater interest by accepting the premise that a fetus is a person who has the right to life. By doing this Thomson is not defending abortion due to the premise that the fetus is not a person, which is common to most pro-abortion arguments, but by defending rights of a person in general.

Does a women’s right to choose to have an abortion outweigh a baby’s right to be born? The controversy at hand is whether the rights of a women outweigh the rights of a baby, and whether a mother should be given the rights to pursue a procedure like an abortion. To clarify an abortion is a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy in which a doctor uses a vacuum and suction to suck out a fetus from the uterus. The issue is whether the fetus who has the potential to be a rational, productive human being has the unequivocal rights of any other human being and whether he or she should be protected from, in every sense of the word, murder. The argument made by abortionfacts.com a nonprofit Christian pro-life education organization, is that