Thomson vs. Marquis: Abortion

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 disagreement many people say that one person's right to life always outweighs another person's right to autonomy. However Thomson's argument makes a very interesting unwanted pregnancies resulting in permissible abortions. To counteract her claims I'm going to use a hypothetical situation as she did. Let's say a mother gives birth to a set of conjoined twins. The twins grow up having a somewhat troublesome life considering the fact that neither one has the opportunity to achieve autonomy. Once they get older, lets say age 18, twin A obtains the information that twin B's survival depends on the use of twin A's vital organ's. However twin A would survive if twin B was too be separated from him thus granting twin A his right to autonomy. It seems that it is obvious that it not permissible for twin A to kill twin B. The following argument shows a more concrete view of the situation. It is morally impermissible for twin A to kill twin B if he has the right to life and the right to twin A's body. Twin B does have a right to life. Twin B prima facie has

There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.

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.

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.

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

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.

Warren and Thomson might even counter some of my arguments too. They might explain that they might possess the DNA for the next Rockefeller or Gates, but they also might have the potential for the next evil criminal like Hitler and because the child won’t be raised properly the chances are more likely that they turn out evil rather than good. Therefore, by allowing the parents to commit an abortion, society would be safer and crime rate would go down. I also, counter that argument by saying that if this were the case then the police would get to them and if it turns out to be the next Gates society benefits from them anyhow.

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 fault with both arguments is that it does not go beyond identifying if the fetus is human or not. At this point is where Thomson begins her argument. In Thomson’s article, she expands the pro-choice argument by providing experiments to better articulate it to readers. Through Thomson’s violinist experiment, she is able to move the argument for pro-choice supporters in a positive direction, by defining why a woman is not morally responsible for a fetus, which therefore defends abortion.

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

I will dispute Thomson’s suggestion that the distinction is unimportant and argue that a stronger response to this objection is needed than the one she has provided with the violinist analogy. We will begin from a more fundamental distinction between action and inaction, where killing involves taking action while letting die does not. More accurately, one kills someone if one initiates events that end in his or her death whereas one lets someone die by allowing already existing events to end in his or her death. In extreme cases, such as those where the fetus puts the mothers life at risk, we must take into consideration that the mother has a right to life just as the fetus does. We then need to ask who’s right to life is greater? I will answer this question by saying that performing an abortion is an act of aggression, one with an intention to kill. Whereas to do nothing, would be to let the mother die and would not be an attempt by anyone to murder her. There is a passivity to the latter that should be seen as morally preferable than directly killing an innocent

In “Defense of Abortion” one of Thomson’s arguments is that fetus has a right to life but does not necessarily means the fetus have a right to the mother’s body. She tries to justify this point by using the “famous violinist” scenario. Some one is kidnapped and attached to a violinist with a fatal kidney problem and being attached to the kidnapped persons circulatory system can only save him. Which means that the same as the fetus the violinist also have a right to life but does not have the right to use the other person’s body to stay alive, unless the kidnapped person gives his consent. Now in the case of the fetus having permission to use the mother’s body is ridiculous because first of all it is impossible for the fetus to ask for any consent