Defense of abortion

In “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thomson argues in defense of the moral permissibility of abortion in several, but not all circumstances. First off, Thomson uses the expanding house example to refute the extremist view on abortion, which states that abortion is morally impermissible even in situations where the mother’s life is in danger. Thomson states that a mother has the right to kill an expanding child that will crush her to death in her house. Thus, Thomson derives the ownership thesis

The main thesis of J. J. Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion” is that although many may see abortion as the unjust killing of an innocent human being, people need to understand that this should not change mother’s right to her own body and whether or not she will be able to support this child. She did this by bringing up many examples, such as if the reader were in a situation where he was responsible for the life of a famous Violinist, or the differences between a Good Samaritan and a Minimally Decent

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

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. While I agree that a zygote cannot have

the topic of abortion. Abortion brings in emotion, religion and ethics all at once, which is why it is such a polarizing topic. This leads to having many on each side of the debate, such as Judith Thomson and John Noonan. Thomson makes many valid analogies in support of abortion in comparison to Noonan who just refutes basic arguments for abortion, and it is for this reason that Thomson is more persuasive. While Thomson makes many different analogies in his essay “A Defense of Abortion”, none were

In “A Defense of Abortion", Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that a life is a life regardless if it was still in the fetus. Possibly the best argument that was made by Thomson was that a fetus has already been a human person long before birth. In this Paper, I will argue that this argument fails because a life should be consider living when it is “conscious”. In “A Defense of Abortion", Thomson starts by talking about what most opposition to abortion would use as a premise, that “We are asked to notice

Lastly, on the issue of abortion, my point stands without change. On my paper I have stated that: The morally permissibility of abortion should depend on the circumstances. For example, in the case of a woman having an unwanted pregnancy by force, I believe then abortion is morally permissible. However, if it was planned pregnancy, I think the woman has an obligation to give birth to the child. My new, modified belief is the same, possibly even more convinced by the arguments studied and examined

PHILOSOPHY 2615 Melissa Ramessar 212762654 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. Judith Thompson presents a scenario where you are the only person with a particular blood type needed to save a

Thank you! Ziyun Wang 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

“A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thomson, examines and provides a perspective on the debate over abortion. Thomson begins her paper providing the slippery slope argument made by pro-life and pro-choice supporters. The primary statement for both parties deal with the identification of the fetus as a human. Pro-life supporters argue that the fetus is a human from conception, and disagree that a line drawn should not be drawn for which human life begins within the time frame of the pregnancy