Abortionist Argumentative Analysis

If regular abortions are wrong for the reason that a fetus is considered a person or having personhood, then abortions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest should be considered wrong too. A mother is not legally allowed to kill a three-month-old child because it is a byproduct of rape or incest, and a fetus has the same inviolability rights, so it should not be allowed legally to kill the fetus. The fact that the child is in the womb does not give mothers the right to kill the fetus in ordinary abortion arguments and should not be different in the case of rape or incest either (Cohen, 2015). Judith Jarvis Thomson proposed the violinist argument, in which a person wakes up from being kidnapped and finds himself hooked up to an a famous violinist suffering from a kidney disease that will claim her life unless the man allows her to use him for nine months as a type of human dialysis machine. It is not the violinist’s fault for the situation that the man is in. …show more content…
The man in the story is not obligated to sustain the violinist. The same can be said of the mother. She is not obligated to sustain the fetus in these cases, therefore claiming that all abortions are not equal. However, Cohen agrees that women may not be responsible for the rape, but contests that they are responsible for the pregnancy and could take preventative measures to ensure that conception does not take place. This article maintains a clear goal to prove all abortions are equal. This is much different from other pro-life arguments, as this one gets deeper into the issue that most classify as “the