In this paper, I will argue that while Judith Jarvis Thomson advocates for a woman's right to remove a fetus without this action directly relating to having the right to its death, the concept of intertwined rights suggests that severing the dependent relationship inherently harms the fetus, thereby challenging this separation.
In Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion," she creates a violinist thought experiment to advocate for abortion rights, challenging the absolute right to life of a fetus. Even if we consider a fetus a person (Thomson 48), Thomson argues that it does not automatically have the right to use another person's body without consent (Thomson). Furthermore, Thomson distinguishes between the right to remove a fetus and the right to actively cause its death, emphasizing that a woman's bodily …show more content…
In the case of abortion, the decision to terminate a pregnancy directly results in the cessation of the fetus's life by severing its dependent relationship with the woman's body. While the woman may not be actively inflicting harm in the traditional sense, her choice to withdraw support constitutes a form of harm by depriving the fetus of the necessary resources for survival. Moreover, the argument that the woman is merely choosing not to provide positive aid overlooks the inherent dependency of the fetus on the woman's body during pregnancy. Thus, while the act of abortion may not involve direct physical harm inflicted by the woman, it nonetheless results in harm to the fetus by denying it access to the support it needs to continue developing and eventually be born. Therefore, even within the framework of non-maleficence, the ethical implications of abortion cannot be dismissed solely based on refraining from positive
In Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion," she creates a violinist thought experiment to advocate for abortion rights, challenging the absolute right to life of a fetus. Even if we consider a fetus a person (Thomson 48), Thomson argues that it does not automatically have the right to use another person's body without consent (Thomson). Furthermore, Thomson distinguishes between the right to remove a fetus and the right to actively cause its death, emphasizing that a woman's bodily …show more content…
In the case of abortion, the decision to terminate a pregnancy directly results in the cessation of the fetus's life by severing its dependent relationship with the woman's body. While the woman may not be actively inflicting harm in the traditional sense, her choice to withdraw support constitutes a form of harm by depriving the fetus of the necessary resources for survival. Moreover, the argument that the woman is merely choosing not to provide positive aid overlooks the inherent dependency of the fetus on the woman's body during pregnancy. Thus, while the act of abortion may not involve direct physical harm inflicted by the woman, it nonetheless results in harm to the fetus by denying it access to the support it needs to continue developing and eventually be born. Therefore, even within the framework of non-maleficence, the ethical implications of abortion cannot be dismissed solely based on refraining from positive