Before Judith Jarvis Thomson, all the philosophers that have been arguing pro and against abortion have mainly been focusing on establish if the foetus is a person or not. In fact, arguments pro-abortion would argue that the foetus is only a leaiving tissue of DNA. On the other hand, arguments against it, would say that the foetus is a person since it presents human characteristics. In this regard, Thomson offers an original contribution moving one steps forward in respect to the others philosophers. In fact, once she has accepted the fact that the foetus is a person and has the right to live she addresses the question on whatever abortion is permissible or not. In order to do that, she uses the example of the famous violinist. This example
…show more content…
In fact, he states that the relationship between parent and child morally matter. In detail, Ross is famous because he replies to the act-consequentialism approach in an excellent manner. In fact, where act-consequentialist means to act in order to produce the best consequences, Ross argues that there are others things that matters other then consequences. In this case, according to Ross what is important is the relationship between parent and child. Using this argument, Gensler says that the violinist example is not able to undermine the standard argument because it does not take into account this special relationship between parent and child (Gensler, 1986). On the other hand, I would argue that this relationship between parent and child is not existent yet. In fact, the parent is not necessarily the person who conceives the baby but the individual who raise him or her. For instance, if we think about adoption the biological parents usually are not going to see their baby for the rest of their life. Moreover, some people reject the idea of being a parent hence they choose to abort. So then, this relationship is not anymore the relationship between parent and child but the relationship between child and the person who does not want to be
In fact, he states that the relationship between parent and child morally matter. In detail, Ross is famous because he replies to the act-consequentialism approach in an excellent manner. In fact, where act-consequentialist means to act in order to produce the best consequences, Ross argues that there are others things that matters other then consequences. In this case, according to Ross what is important is the relationship between parent and child. Using this argument, Gensler says that the violinist example is not able to undermine the standard argument because it does not take into account this special relationship between parent and child (Gensler, 1986). On the other hand, I would argue that this relationship between parent and child is not existent yet. In fact, the parent is not necessarily the person who conceives the baby but the individual who raise him or her. For instance, if we think about adoption the biological parents usually are not going to see their baby for the rest of their life. Moreover, some people reject the idea of being a parent hence they choose to abort. So then, this relationship is not anymore the relationship between parent and child but the relationship between child and the person who does not want to be