A Defense Of Abortion Is Immoral By Judith Thomson

1300 Words 5 Pages
The most common question asked in abortion debates is whether or not a fetus is a person. In “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Thomson, she argues that abortion can be morally permissible even if you consider the fetus a person. In “Why Abortion is Immoral” by Don Marquis, the author argues that the fetus is not a person but robbing it of a future like ours is unethical. Like Thomson, I believe there are circumstances where abortion is permissible. I believe when the mother’s life is in danger, in the case of rape, and in the case of failed contraception abortion is permissible. I also agree with Marquis that abortions are unethical whenever they rob someone of a potential future. Both authors acknowledge that most abortion debates are centered …show more content…
Marquis first brings up a common argument from pro-life supporters that is too broad and doesn’t necessarily prove anything. Many pro-life supporters would believe “it is always wrong to end a human’s life” therefore, abortion is unethical because it takes away a human’s life. Though the fetus is not yet mature, many believe a fetus is a person because it has human DNA and is made of human cells. Marquis doesn’t support this because it would assume that even killing cancer cells is unethical because after all, cancer cells are composed of human cells too. Killing cancer cells would be in the same category as abortion because both are killing human cells. Most would find this assumption absurd. I believe many anti-abortion supporters use the argument that abortion is wrong simply because they grant a fetus is a person. Killing a person is wrong, therefore, aborting a fetus is wrong because a person is being killed. This is the argument they believe. I think this is why …show more content…
Opposite of Marquis, Thomson grants that a fetus is a person for the sake of her argument. I believe she does this to prove that abortion is still acceptable even if the fetus is viewed as a person. Thomson uses a violinist in a thought experiment to prove that humans do not have a moral obligation to carry babies to term. She argues that women have a right to decided what happens in their bodies over the life of a fetus. She gives a scenario where you wake up plugged up to a famous violin player. You were kidnapped by the “Society of Music Lovers” because you had the same blood type as the musician. The doctor informs you that you must be attached for 9 months or unplugging will kill the violinist. Thomson argues in this situation, you do not have an obligation to stay plugged up. There was no consent given. This thought experiment is analogous of getting pregnant by rape. In rape, there is no consent to intercourse and therefore, there is no obligation to keep the baby. Forcing someone to keep the baby is wrong because the baby doesn’t have a right in the body of a rape victim. In the same manner, the kidnapped individual is not obligated to stay plugged if no consent was given. The kidnapped victim has a right over her body. I believe this scenario shows it is ethically acceptable to unplug self in the same way of abortion. No law should force a woman to keep a baby she didn’t consent to. The next scenario from

Related Documents