Summary Of Defense Of Abortion By Judith Jarvis Thomson

However, being said so, we are presented with a statement that does not please, the ears, therefore, we are forced to question whether or not a baby would like to be told they are the product of a rape. Being so, we can dismiss this case on the grounds that abortion is permissible in the case of rape, and a fetus being conceived from rape. Thomson additionally arises the objection that when presented with the fact that everyone has a right to life, including an unborn child, we cannot kill anyone or anything. (Thomson 19). This is brought up from a strict point of view on the value and preservation of life.

For example, she addresses the assumption that a fetus has a right to life by arguing that this right cannot be absolute, since it would lead to ridiculous consequences. She writes: "If the right to life is absolute, then no woman has the right to remove a fetus from her body, even if it is threatening her life. Clearly, this is an unreasonable conclusion" (Willis, 2007) . By employing logical reasoning, Willis is able to highlight the weaknesses in the anti-abortion arguments, as well as expand the reasoning he utilizes when addressing abortion, as well as persuade his audience that a more nuanced and empathic approach to abortion is needed.

By failing to define the terms ‘fetus’ and ‘standard fetus’, he leaves open for interpretation not only the moral significance of the terms, but also their strength in relation to his argument. Marquis assumes that the fetus has a future that is just as valuable as that of an adult yet fails to grant the fetus the same moral status as an adult. This lack of consistency along with the falsity of his claims weakens his argument and leaves a large piece of the abortion question unanswered. Because many of his premises are false, I altered them to be correct which in turn resulted in an illogical sequence of evidence for Marquis’ original conclusion; rendering his argument invalid. After altering the conclusion to follow the revised premises, it only gave a suitable claim for some abortions, rather than the overwhelming majority of abortions.

On the opposite side of the level headed discussion, Thomson's contention is effective and greatly convincing. She has spent more exertion persuading the perusers of her new meaning of the privilege to-life idea rather than simply assaulting all the option choices like Marquis did. Thomson's utilization of test musings was a superb technique to pass on her contemplations without the limitation and uneasiness regularly connected with a delicate, sensitive subject like fetus

Throughout Don Marquis’s article on why abortion is immoral, it is clear that he stands at a third party view on this controversial idea. Marquis is neither anti-abortion nor pro-choice, and he states different reasons why he thinks this throughout his article. Some of the reasons are that anti-abortionists’ views are too broad and pro-choicers’ views are too narrow, not enough research or factual information of the topic of abortion, and then towards the end he talks about how it may or may not be different with animals. First, Marquis talks about anti-abortion and the problems he sees from the pro-choice side, and then he talks about pro-choice and counteracts that with the problems an anti-abortionist would see. He believes abortion is immoral;

Abortion is not only a fluctuating concept in our society, but an ethical and emotional debate, as well. The image I have chosen presents concepts from a cultural and historical background, as well as presents an ethical, emotional, and logical appeal to the audience. The debate about abortion has simply been overblown and exhausted. The truth of the matter is, abortion is murder. Ending a life, whether innocent or guilty, is murder.

However this fuels the social attitude in which women must seek permission, when many consider abortion to be a right which all women should have access too. This poses the question of if limiting the rights of women is ever justifiable in the best interests of the baby, the roman catholic church argue that a foetus is a person from the moment of conception this means that they to are entitled to the same rights of the mother and to have an abortion is to murder a living being. From this perspective it is apparent that they argue it is justifiable to put the rights of the foetuses; despite this point when a foetus is though to gain rights is a key point to this argument. As personhood would determine when a foetus is able to gain rights, although critics would argue that even still this does not warrant them to have the same full rights that the mother would

Though Barbara Hewson thoroughly demonstrates skill and knowledge in the subject of abortion, she takes the subject of many conflicts and turns it into a mess of unpersuasive words. The development of her stance on this subject shows no growth, and although she demonstrated the use of ethos, her article seems to endlessly cover the same information she had already delivered. Her use of logos and pathos is lacking, and what little use of ethos she has gives the reader only basic knowledge, and does not seem to help deliver her point. Hewson’s intended audience, based on her writing, is people of higher educational levels, or rather, those working on higher education in medical fields. Her lack of usage in basic Aristotelian rhetoric resulted

In reflection to the readings, there are many arguments that are for or against abortion. Is abortion ever justified? In feminism point of view, Susan Sherwin believes, yes, abortion is justified because it focuses on woman’s right to abortion in a liberal aspect. She also believes that woman’s right that pregnant woman are the best judge when to considering to abort the fetus. That means, the autonomy is shifted to the woman.

The debate whether abortion is morally permissible or not permissible is commonly discussed between the considerations of the status of a fetus and ones virtue theory. A widely recognized theory of pro-choice advocates can be thought to be that their ethical view is that fetus’s merely are not humans because they lack the right to life since they believe a fetus does not obtain any sort of mental functions or capability of feelings. Although this may be true in some cases it is not in all so explaining the wrongness of killing, between the common debates whether a fetus does or does not obtain human hood, should be illustrated in a way of a virtuous theory. The wrongness of killing is explained by what the person or fetus is deprived of, such as their right to life; not by means of a heart beat or function of one’s body, but by the fact that it takes their ability of potentially growing into a person to have the same human characteristics as we do.

In “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Thomson argues with a unique approach regarding the topic of abortion. For the purpose of the argument, Thomas agrees to go against her belief and constructs an argument based on the idea that the fetus is a person at conception. She then formulates her arguments concerning that the right to life is not an absolute right. There are certain situations where abortion is morally permissible. She believes that the fetus’s right to life does not outweigh the right for the woman to control what happens to her own body.

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.

Abortion is one of the most controversial topics discussed in our world today. Millions of fetuses never got a chance to be born because a mother chose to abort them. Although I do not believe in abortion, I believe a woman should have the right to decide whether to have a baby or not. Our textbook presents views and arguments on the issues. The article from our text on “A Defense of Abortion” written by Judith Jarvis Thomason states the right to have an abortion should be the pregnant woman’s decision.

This same way of thinking means that a fetus has no choice or ability to make decision when it comes to whose womb they inhabit as a result of failed contraception. Again, I am not arguing that abortion would not be morally permissible in the case of failed contraception but I am saying that there are key differences in intent and rational capacities between a malicious burglar and an unknowing fetus that weaken this analogy. Thomson also says that a burglar who breaks in should not have a right to stay in your house. While this is true, there are very few cases where a burglar will stay in your house if there intent is to steal something and get away. Staying in the house would be irrational if they want to get away with the crime.

In A Defense of Abortion Thompson presents an argument against the morality of abortion by showing the superiority of women’s rights through several different analogous cases. The case of focus will be case eight, “ A Selfless Brother’s Box of Chocolates.” In scenario one, Thompson argues that an older brother has a box of chocolates while his younger brother has nothing; the question of appeal is does the younger brother automatically have a right to these chocolates? The box of chocolates represents a woman’s body while the younger brother represents the fetus. Although it would be nice for the older brother (mother) to share his box of chocolates (mothers body) he is not obligated to share them with anyone even if he is perceived as a selfish, greedy, or a stingy person.