Thomson presents the anti-abortionist argument in the beginning of her paper. In order to get a better understanding of the argument I have taken the time to put it in numbered premise conclusion form:
Every person has a right to life.
The fetus is a person.
Therefore, the fetus has a right to life.
The mother has a right to decide what happens in and to her body.
Regardless, a person’s right to life is stronger than the mother’s right to her body
Therefore, the fetus may not be killed and the abortion may not be performed
The premise that Thomson rejects is premise 3 (Therefore, the fetus has a right to life.) It can also be said that Thomson rejects premise 3 by questioning what “right to life” in premise 1 (Every person has a right to life.) truly means, or what “right to life” truly entails. Thomson examines two different views on what the right to life consists of. She brings up this topic to point out that simply stating “everyone has a right to life” does not come without its problems. The first view is that having a right to life means to be given at least the bare minimum required to keep living. Thomson’s example is that of the person on their deathbed, whose only cure is the cool touch of Henry Fonda’s hand on their fevered brow. Although it would be nice for Henry Fonda to fly into your city and give you his cool touch, your right to life does not necessarily mean that Henry Fonda is obligated to go out of his way and cure your sickness. Supporters of this first view might say that, due to the sick person’s right to life and being given the minimum to survive, Henry Fonda would be obligated to cure the sick person and Thomson believes this is problematic.The second view is that the right to life does not mean you must be given anything to continue living, but rather that no one must kill you. Thomson’s example …show more content…
The premise of the anti-abortionist’s argument would change to 3. Therefore, the fetus has a right to not be killed unjustly. Then Thomson goes on to say that the emendation helps clear the gap in the argument against abortion. By the gap, Thomson means the question of whether the fetus has a right to life and from there whether an abortion is the unjust killing of the fetus, especially in the case of where the mother is raped. To close the gap would be for the anti-abortionists to provide enough evidence to prove that the fetus has a right to …show more content…
This type of pregnancy is that where the mother has become pregnant through the means of getting raped, and therefore in the case where the mother has not given the fetus a right to the use of her body. Thomson says that terminating this pregnancy is considered morally permissible due to that fact. Thomson also presents thought experiments that help support her conclusion. One thought experiment that supports this is the one of the violinist, in the case where you were kidnapped and hooked up to him without your permission. This case is related to rape in that in both cases your permission was not taken into consideration. They are also similar because it would not be considered unjust on your part to disconnect yourself from the violinist or abort the fetus, in other words to refuse the use of your body as their means of survival without your explicit
Every person has a right to life.
The fetus is a person.
Therefore, the fetus has a right to life.
The mother has a right to decide what happens in and to her body.
Regardless, a person’s right to life is stronger than the mother’s right to her body
Therefore, the fetus may not be killed and the abortion may not be performed
The premise that Thomson rejects is premise 3 (Therefore, the fetus has a right to life.) It can also be said that Thomson rejects premise 3 by questioning what “right to life” in premise 1 (Every person has a right to life.) truly means, or what “right to life” truly entails. Thomson examines two different views on what the right to life consists of. She brings up this topic to point out that simply stating “everyone has a right to life” does not come without its problems. The first view is that having a right to life means to be given at least the bare minimum required to keep living. Thomson’s example is that of the person on their deathbed, whose only cure is the cool touch of Henry Fonda’s hand on their fevered brow. Although it would be nice for Henry Fonda to fly into your city and give you his cool touch, your right to life does not necessarily mean that Henry Fonda is obligated to go out of his way and cure your sickness. Supporters of this first view might say that, due to the sick person’s right to life and being given the minimum to survive, Henry Fonda would be obligated to cure the sick person and Thomson believes this is problematic.The second view is that the right to life does not mean you must be given anything to continue living, but rather that no one must kill you. Thomson’s example …show more content…
The premise of the anti-abortionist’s argument would change to 3. Therefore, the fetus has a right to not be killed unjustly. Then Thomson goes on to say that the emendation helps clear the gap in the argument against abortion. By the gap, Thomson means the question of whether the fetus has a right to life and from there whether an abortion is the unjust killing of the fetus, especially in the case of where the mother is raped. To close the gap would be for the anti-abortionists to provide enough evidence to prove that the fetus has a right to …show more content…
This type of pregnancy is that where the mother has become pregnant through the means of getting raped, and therefore in the case where the mother has not given the fetus a right to the use of her body. Thomson says that terminating this pregnancy is considered morally permissible due to that fact. Thomson also presents thought experiments that help support her conclusion. One thought experiment that supports this is the one of the violinist, in the case where you were kidnapped and hooked up to him without your permission. This case is related to rape in that in both cases your permission was not taken into consideration. They are also similar because it would not be considered unjust on your part to disconnect yourself from the violinist or abort the fetus, in other words to refuse the use of your body as their means of survival without your explicit