Is abortion defendable? So many different view and opinions arise from this question. Who are we to say that it is morally right or wrong? Judith Thomson has formed the people seeds analogy that supports the woman 's right over her body. Altogether, Judith Thomson has valid and controversial arguments.
Thomson has proposed her people seeds analogy. Thomson says, "Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery" (Thomson, p. 478). Here she is comparing the people-seeds with pregnancy. If we, as women, open our "windows" there is the possibility of a people-seed (fetus) taking root in our bodies. If we put ourselves into situations to make this possibility happen then is it our obligation to let it keep root? Many would argue that we are obligated to let the fetus live inside us and take root. But, we do have rights. Does the fetus have rights also? In some instances, some would say that both have rights or one or the other. When it comes to the right of life the situation always becomes a little more complicated and complex. The house and the root both have individual rights but we must distinguish between who has the upper hand. Altogether, Thomson gave this analogy to make us think and analyze situations, so, as people we have options. What if we buy the best screens available to avoid having children? Screens and contraceptives can be defective. Thomson says, "Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house?" (Thomson, p.478). At this point Thomson is proposing the question of whether or not the fetus can house, protect, and live using your body as its own. The fetus had no way of making this decision or the choice to take root or not. Many argue that we are responsible for letting the fetus live because we put ourselves into the situation knowing the possible outcomes to follow. We as women have the right to our own bodies argues Thomson (Thomson, p. 478). Thomson seems to believe that with consensual sex with faulty contraceptives can be legally terminated. Therefore, according to Thomson the right to termination is based on personal beliefs. What happens when rape is apart of the rooting situation? If rape becomes apart of the situation many would voice that it is optional to let the fetus stay rooted. Is this justifiable? It is unfair that a mother who chooses to not let the fetus take root gets shunned, but if a …show more content…
If withholding is not a violation of a right then it cannot be proven unjustifiable. Withholding a fetus the right to root is a right to the individual themselves. Not letting the fetus stay rooted is not a violation which means that it is not unjust meaning its not morally wrong. There is a difference in a desire and a moral obligation. We define a desire as a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen. We define a obligation as an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment. We as humans have many desires but fewer moral obligations. A desire is much more different than a moral obligation. We sometimes believe there are desires but we have no right claim to those desires. Therefore, making the ultimatum of whether abortion is or is not unjust killing is
Thomson has proposed her people seeds analogy. Thomson says, "Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery" (Thomson, p. 478). Here she is comparing the people-seeds with pregnancy. If we, as women, open our "windows" there is the possibility of a people-seed (fetus) taking root in our bodies. If we put ourselves into situations to make this possibility happen then is it our obligation to let it keep root? Many would argue that we are obligated to let the fetus live inside us and take root. But, we do have rights. Does the fetus have rights also? In some instances, some would say that both have rights or one or the other. When it comes to the right of life the situation always becomes a little more complicated and complex. The house and the root both have individual rights but we must distinguish between who has the upper hand. Altogether, Thomson gave this analogy to make us think and analyze situations, so, as people we have options. What if we buy the best screens available to avoid having children? Screens and contraceptives can be defective. Thomson says, "Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house?" (Thomson, p.478). At this point Thomson is proposing the question of whether or not the fetus can house, protect, and live using your body as its own. The fetus had no way of making this decision or the choice to take root or not. Many argue that we are responsible for letting the fetus live because we put ourselves into the situation knowing the possible outcomes to follow. We as women have the right to our own bodies argues Thomson (Thomson, p. 478). Thomson seems to believe that with consensual sex with faulty contraceptives can be legally terminated. Therefore, according to Thomson the right to termination is based on personal beliefs. What happens when rape is apart of the rooting situation? If rape becomes apart of the situation many would voice that it is optional to let the fetus stay rooted. Is this justifiable? It is unfair that a mother who chooses to not let the fetus take root gets shunned, but if a …show more content…
If withholding is not a violation of a right then it cannot be proven unjustifiable. Withholding a fetus the right to root is a right to the individual themselves. Not letting the fetus stay rooted is not a violation which means that it is not unjust meaning its not morally wrong. There is a difference in a desire and a moral obligation. We define a desire as a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen. We define a obligation as an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment. We as humans have many desires but fewer moral obligations. A desire is much more different than a moral obligation. We sometimes believe there are desires but we have no right claim to those desires. Therefore, making the ultimatum of whether abortion is or is not unjust killing is