Judith Jarvis Thomson and Don Marquis both have extremely strong views on whether or not abortion is permissible. Judith Jarvis Thomson’s pro-choice standpoint defends a woman 's right to do what they want with their body. Don Marquis’s pro-life standpoint defends that a fetus is a person from the time of conception and it has a right to a future. Different situations come into play when it comes to abortion from rape to the mother 's life at risk that affect choices. A woman 's right to choose what to do with her body should absolutely never be taken away.
Abortion is killing a fetus, a fetus is a person, all person has a right to life, killing someone with a right to life is always wrong. In Thompsons article, she portrays that this statement isn’t always true by making arguments in certain situations that abortion is okay. However, many might disagree with her arguments about abortion but, to which I see to be perfectly thought-out and, explained. A person is not morally bounded to do something for someone else such as to save their life.
Patrick Lee and Robert George assert that abortion is objectively immoral. One of Lee and George’s main reason for coming to this conclusion is that human embryos are living human beings. This essentially validates that abortion is indeed the process of killing a human. Another main point said by the two is a rebuttal to a common argument used in favor of abortion, which states that a potential mother has full parental responsibilities only if she has voluntarily assumed them. The rebuttal to this was that the potential mother does indeed have special responsibilities to raise the child.
Written Assignment #6 In Judith Jarvis Thompson’s article, A Defense of Abortion, where Thompson discusses argues that abortion is not always permissible, but permissible in certain circumstances; such as, the abortion is done attempt to save the mother’s life and in cases of rape. However, I do not believe provides a solid enough argument in stating that abortion is immoral in nearly all circumstances. In this argument, Thompson takes on the perceptive that the fetus is a living person.
Judith Thomson’s A Defense of Abortion is an article defending abortion on the grounds of rights, duties, and justice. Thomson uses various thought experiments to represent different circumstances surrounding a pregnancy and the permissibility of abortion in these circumstances. One such thought experiment that she uses in her argument is the burglar example. If you open a window and a burglar climbs into your house, anti-abortionists would argue that the burglar has a right to stay in your house and you have a duty to shelter him because you are partially responsible for his presence there. Even if you install bars specifically to keep out burglars and the burglar still manages to break in then you are still partially responsible and he still
Thompson believes that every person has complete control over their own bodies, and that they are responsible to what happens to it, so her argument is that abortion is not morally wrong but its needed to protect oneself from harm. For example, ectopic pregnancies happen when fertilization of an egg occurs anywhere else rather than in the uterus, which is in an abnormal place, now this pregnancy could be deadly to the mother, so an abortion is needed to save the mother’s life, because she has the right to protect her own life, even if it means to kill a
Thomson then shifts the argument towards the definition of abortion, according to opposing parties, which is that it is directly killing the child and how it is connected to the woman’s rights and the analogy. This idea leads to the four logical trains of reasoning. The first is that directly killing a human being is always not permissible, then an abortion may not be carried out. The second is that killing a person who is innocent is murder, than abortion may not be performed, and the third is that one should refrain from killing a innocent human is more important than keeping another alive, an abortion should not be done. The fourth is “if one's only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one must prefer
Thomson says this is not always the case, Thomson states that a women’s right to autonomy trumps the rights of the fetus. 2. Thomson uses the argument that a women’s rights trump that of the fetuses’ rights. Thompson uses three different analogies to try to persuade the
She tries to support her argument with her famous violinist case; she asks the reader to imagine being kidnapped and then waking up next to an unconscious famous violinist with a fatal kidney ailment who’s circulatory system was plugged into yours for nine months, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own by the Music Lovers Society. Even though all persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons just as a fetus is, your perfect self-regarding duties are stronger than your duties towards either of the two. Hence, unplugging yourself or aborting the baby is problematic but not morally impermissible. Yet in the case Thompson asks us to imagine we were kidnapped, or in other words it only applies to pregnancies which occured as a result of a rape. Does it follow that
Thomson’s Response to This Objection- I think that Thomson’s response to my objection would be that while we are able to see that the pregnancy/violinist analogy does lack a realistic relevance because the situations that are set up are very different. The reader no matter their belief on the pregnancy/violinist case, or whether they agree with the Thomson case or not, provides no real insight on the rape case. I also think that Thomson would point out that her point in providing this analogy in particular was to stress the inference from said person’s right to life to that said person’s right to the use of another’s body.
Judith Thompson in her analogy of abortion gives a scenario, of someone waking up one morning only to find that they have been plugged into a violinist that has a kidney failure, they are told by doctors that they will have to be plugged into the “famous” violinist for nine months, if they unplug, the violinist dies, if they stay plugged in, the violinist after the nine months recover however that person suffers their right to what happens to their body. The question posed following this analogy is, should the person unplug? There are different aspects to look at it from, let me give my scenario, suppose a lady decides to have sex unprotected because she gains more pleasure from it and in the morning forgets to take her early morning pills and in total forgets to take birth control pills and becomes pregnant. She is the sole cause of the pregnancy and should take responsibility for it; the person plugged into the violinist in Judith Thompson’s analogy isn’t the cause of the failure of the kidney of the violinist so why should they have to take responsibility for it.
Women’s rights have been a long struggle in America’s legal system, as well as in the religious world, for many decades and women continue to have challenges, concerns, and struggles today. Fighting for what is best for their bodies such as a woman’s right to contraceptives to control whether she will get pregnant or not was not ideal for religious and personal reasons but would find a worthy advocate in a woman who would dedicate her life for women’s reproductive rights. The right for a woman to have an abortion became a legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Courts in a very well-known case. It has always been a double standard in what was right and wrong, moral or immoral, towards women than men. A man was looked at with respect
In her essay, Thomson uses arguments from analogies to support her conclusions that abortion is sometimes morally permissible. As discussed in the lectures, an argument from analogy is an argument based on the similarity of two things – A is similar to B, and since it is morally permissible to do A, it is morally permissible to do B. Thomson presents several cases that she proposes to be morally analogous to different cases of abortion, in the case of rape; where the life of the mother is at risk; and in cases of consensual sex where no contraception was used, and where contraception was used and failed. In her first argument, Thomson uses the story of the violinist as a parallel between a pregnancy that results from rape. Thomson wants the reader to believe that the two things she is comparing are similar and morally equivalent.
Don Marquis offers the following argument against the moral permissibility of abortion: 1. It is wrong to deprive any determinate individual of having a “future like ours” (FLO), that is, of the future valuable experiences that its future may contain. 2. To have an abortion is to deprive a determine individual (a fetus) of a FLO. ---------------- 3.