The argument that Thomson is trying to make is that abortions are permissible, but not always. She says that there will be cases in which carrying the child to term requires at least Minimally Decent Samaritanism of the mother and this is a standard we must not fall below (184). What Thomson is trying to say is that mothers should assume responsibility for their child, but they often won’t because they feel like it’s a huge sacrifice. Killing the fetus shouldn’t be an option. Also, killing the fetus is equivalent to killing an innocent person because killing the fetus violates its right to life same as any other individual (180).
Thomson introduces her argument at the end of the article because she wanted to give examples of a good Samaritan and a decent Samaritan and how they relate to
…show more content…
The violinist that is attached to you needs your kidneys in order to survive the same way a fetus needs its mother in order to survive. Only one thing is that the violinist was plugged to you by the music lovers without your consciousness in which Thomson was trying to refer to rape. You didn’t want this, but it happened. This can also be referred to unprotected sex in which the fetus is unwanted. The violinist doesn’t have the right to your body the same as the fetus with the mother, but the violinist has the right not to be killed just like the fetus. A decent Samaritan would not unplug from the violinist because even though what the music lovers did was unjust he deserves to live (176). This can also be referred to the fetus. The fetus has a right to live even though if it was unwanted during conception. Thomson talks about how we need to be minimal decent Samaritans in which we sacrifice ourselves and take the responsibility for the violinist and the fetus (184). What she is trying to say is that we should not unplug from the violinist and we shouldn’t get
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.
Second, the author uses her “expanding child” example. “Trapped in a tiny house with a growing child and you are up against a wall, and in a few minutes, you will be crushed, on the other hand the child won’t be crushed. The only thing that will save her life is to kill the child. Is abortion permissible to save the pregnant woman’s life? Because the mother being compared to that of the house, this brings up the idea that the mother should be able to do as she pleases with her body, and that her body carries more significance than the fetus’ right to life. This brings in the argument of a third-party intervention, such as a doctor. If a doctor did not agree to perform an abortion, to save this mother, then the mother would be denied her rights, and the right to decide what is done with her body. If a woman doesn’t have a right to their body, then you should not be unplugged, thus, save the violinists life. This reasoning is concluded with two smart statements, “It seems to me that to treat the matter in this very way (refuse abortion for the mother’s health) is to refuse to grant the very status of person which is so firmly insisted on for the fetus by anti-abortion advocates. (243) and “a fetus who existence is due to rape” has no right to use their mother’s bodies, and aborting them is not depriving them of anything they had a
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.
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
In pregnancy reduction the same arguments that Thomson uses would apply especially concerning her example of finding yourself trapped in a tiny house with a growing child in it and that you would be crushed to death but the child would not be crushed to death if allowed to continue growing. She concludes that it would not be a bystander’s decision to decide who lives or dies but that you have the right to attack to save your own life. This is pertinent because pregnancy reduction requires a medical procedure, therefore involves a third party, a bystander, that you are asking to help you in your own self defense and because multiple pregnancy is most often a higher risk to the mother as well as the child. She states that both parties are innocent here and “the person threatened” can interfere even if it requires a third party to assist her. What a third party might do in response to a woman’s request for an abortion could vary and they have that right however no third party should stop a woman from defending “her life against the threat to it posed by the unborn child even if doing so involves its death.” Thomson goes on to say that the mother has more rights than the child because the “mother owns the house” and therefore more rights
In this argument it has been established then, that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Thompson now introduces her “violinist analogy.” This is a key term in her argument. In this analogy she asks the reader to imagine you wake one morning and find yourself in bed with an unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and you alone have the right blood type to save him. You have been kidnapped in the middle of the night, and the violinist’s circulatory system is now plugged into yours. The director of the Hospital is now telling you “Sorry, the Society of Music Lovers did this to you – we would never have permitted it if we had known.” To get unplugged from the violinist will kill him, but in nine months he will be totally recovered from his ailment and you can be safely unplugged from one another. Thompson then asks, “Is it a moral responsibility for the kidnapped person to agree to this situation?” This situation she has concocted is comparable to that of a woman being raped. Pro – lifers say every person has a right to life and that right to life is stronger than the mothers right to decide what happens in her body. Thompson then goes on to say that instead of being plugged to the violinist’s body for nine months – its changed to your whole life. According to the pro –life
To explain this idea further one could examine Thomson’s first clear point in regards to her argument as well as the underlying theme of her piece, human rights. Her first point is “The right to life”. She begins with the question of whether the right to life holds more weight than the right to decide what one does with one’s own body. It is here that Thomson seems to open up a multitude of sides for this argument; one’s right to life may outweigh another’s right to their own body, some have more right to life than others depending on their circumstances, some do not have more right to life than others depending on their circumstances, etc. However, despite bringing these numerous positions into the argument, she does
Thomson starts her paper by clarifying that while she does not agree with the premise that “life begins at the moment of conception” she is willing to accept it in her argument to prove that it is a counterpoint to abortion that is as weak as the rest of the pro-life argument. In her essay, Thomson uses three major analogies to illustrate different scenarios to which abortion would be considered. The “Violinist Analogy” describes a pregnancy that has been induced by rape and, foreshadows to a section later in the essay, where she goes into detail about where the line is drawn when two innocent lives are at risk and what is the third party’s role in the problem solving. It is a case in which the Society of Music Lovers has kidnapped you and attached you to a revered violinist who needs your kidneys to support him so he can live. The doctor says it is a nine month procedure, after which, he will be healthy again and you will
What takes precedence; an unborn fetus’ life or its mother’s right to her body? Anti-abortionist argue that the life of an unborn fetus has priority, and thus abortion is morally impermissible as it violates the fetus’ right to life. In her article “A Defense of Abortion”, Judith Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible under the certain conditions where the rights of the fetus fail to surpass a mother’s right of choice. For the sake of her argument, Thomson allows the assumption that a fetus is a person, and instead attacks the premise that the fetus’ right to life is stronger than that of a mother’s body integrity. The main argument that Thomson makes is that right to life, defined by some as the right to “be given the bare minimum a man needs for continued life”, is not an absolute right (Thomson 55). This means that the right to life is not unconditionally above all other rights, such as the right of bodily integrity. For Thomson, this allows a mother to make the morally permissible decision to have an abortion for limited reasons: in the case of rape, pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, and the mother took measures to prevent the contraception. Thomson undertakes a Deontological when making her argument, which I will dispute using a Utilitarian approach. While I agree with Thomson that the fetus’ right to life does not allow the use of the mother’s body in cases of rape and threat to life, I will argue against the premise that an abortion is morally
Unlike Marquis, Thomson 's famous article defended abortion. Based on her premises, the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Thomson main argument in the article the right of the fetus life is not absolutely right. Thus, she defended that abortion is morally acceptable in some cases by talking about “The violinist experiment”, The Burglar and The Case of the People-Seeds. “Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No dough the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person’s right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.”(Thomson, page438) Thomson talks about true premises. Every person has a right to life and everyone has the right to control their body. A mother has the right to choose what will happen to her body, but a life is more important. Therefore, the true premises have right