All Persons Have a Right to Life
The idea of abortion is always a tough subject to talk about. Some people believe it is morally right to have an abortion but some people like Judith Jarvis Thomson think it is wrong to have an abortion. Thompson does just argue that abortion is wrong, she claims that abortion can be justifiable. Judith is right in her belief that abortion is wrong because the fetus is an innocent person and killing an innocent person is always wrong. Most importantly she believes that every person has a right to life and explains why she thinks that in an article she wrote.
Judith Jarvis Thomson, a Professor of Philosophy at M.I.T is greatly known for her article. “A Defense of Abortion”. In her article she continues to argue the idea that every person has a right to life. She doesn’t just include the thought of the fetus being hurt/killed but also the idea that the mother that is carrying the child could also be hurt. One main point that Judith claims is that the fetus and mother are both equally human. “The fetus, being a person, has a right to life, but as the mother is a person too, so she has a right to life. Presumably they have an equal right to life” (474). Some people would assume that since the fetus is not born yet, the mother has more of a right to life than the fetus, but that isn’t necessarily the case. People also need to think about possible situations, where the mother or baby could be injured. If a third party has a right to say whether or not a baby should be aborted can cause many problems with both the mother and fetus. If the third party does not think it is justifiable to have an abortion, the mother could possibly injure herself while trying to still have the abortion. Thompson backs up this idea with saying, “I think, rather, that there are drastic limits to the right of self-defense. If someone threatens you with death unless you torture someone else to death, I think you have not the right, even to save your life, to do so.” (475) She says that is both parties are threatened, the person who is being threatened can intervene and do something about the situation. In a situation like rape or another situation where the mother was forcefully hurt and then carried a baby, Thomson states that a woman can defend her right to live, even if this involves death. As the article continues, Thompson uses many analogies to explain to her readers again and again that every person has a right to life. …show more content…
With her analogies Thompson also tries to show that a fetus’s right to life does not consist in the right not to be killed, but in the right not to be killed unjustly (477). She then continues to explain her thoughts on if a mother was pregnant due to rape. Thomson states that the mother has not given the unborn person a right to the use of he body for food and shelter (477). It is understood that the mother didn’t give the baby the right to be in her body because she didn’t chose to be abused. In cases like this it is hard to harm the fetus. As Thomson believes, the baby doesn’t necessarily have a right to the mother’s body because the mother was wrongfully harmed and has no intentions of having a child. In a situation like this, Thomson believes that it would be okay to have an abortion as long as the fetus isn’t harmed. On the other hand, Judith Jarvis Thomson somewhat contradicts herself many times in this article, which can be very confusing to her audience. One idea that is a bit misunderstood is that Judith doesn’t necessarily believe the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Judith first uses one of many of her analogies by comparing the development of a fetus to that of an acorn and implies that fetuses are not persons. She is very inconsistent when talking about whether or not a fetus is a person when he/she is first conceived. She then continues to also say, “On the other hand, I think…that the fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A newly fertilized ovum. . .
The idea of abortion is always a tough subject to talk about. Some people believe it is morally right to have an abortion but some people like Judith Jarvis Thomson think it is wrong to have an abortion. Thompson does just argue that abortion is wrong, she claims that abortion can be justifiable. Judith is right in her belief that abortion is wrong because the fetus is an innocent person and killing an innocent person is always wrong. Most importantly she believes that every person has a right to life and explains why she thinks that in an article she wrote.
Judith Jarvis Thomson, a Professor of Philosophy at M.I.T is greatly known for her article. “A Defense of Abortion”. In her article she continues to argue the idea that every person has a right to life. She doesn’t just include the thought of the fetus being hurt/killed but also the idea that the mother that is carrying the child could also be hurt. One main point that Judith claims is that the fetus and mother are both equally human. “The fetus, being a person, has a right to life, but as the mother is a person too, so she has a right to life. Presumably they have an equal right to life” (474). Some people would assume that since the fetus is not born yet, the mother has more of a right to life than the fetus, but that isn’t necessarily the case. People also need to think about possible situations, where the mother or baby could be injured. If a third party has a right to say whether or not a baby should be aborted can cause many problems with both the mother and fetus. If the third party does not think it is justifiable to have an abortion, the mother could possibly injure herself while trying to still have the abortion. Thompson backs up this idea with saying, “I think, rather, that there are drastic limits to the right of self-defense. If someone threatens you with death unless you torture someone else to death, I think you have not the right, even to save your life, to do so.” (475) She says that is both parties are threatened, the person who is being threatened can intervene and do something about the situation. In a situation like rape or another situation where the mother was forcefully hurt and then carried a baby, Thomson states that a woman can defend her right to live, even if this involves death. As the article continues, Thompson uses many analogies to explain to her readers again and again that every person has a right to life. …show more content…
With her analogies Thompson also tries to show that a fetus’s right to life does not consist in the right not to be killed, but in the right not to be killed unjustly (477). She then continues to explain her thoughts on if a mother was pregnant due to rape. Thomson states that the mother has not given the unborn person a right to the use of he body for food and shelter (477). It is understood that the mother didn’t give the baby the right to be in her body because she didn’t chose to be abused. In cases like this it is hard to harm the fetus. As Thomson believes, the baby doesn’t necessarily have a right to the mother’s body because the mother was wrongfully harmed and has no intentions of having a child. In a situation like this, Thomson believes that it would be okay to have an abortion as long as the fetus isn’t harmed. On the other hand, Judith Jarvis Thomson somewhat contradicts herself many times in this article, which can be very confusing to her audience. One idea that is a bit misunderstood is that Judith doesn’t necessarily believe the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Judith first uses one of many of her analogies by comparing the development of a fetus to that of an acorn and implies that fetuses are not persons. She is very inconsistent when talking about whether or not a fetus is a person when he/she is first conceived. She then continues to also say, “On the other hand, I think…that the fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A newly fertilized ovum. . .