In this paper I am going to argue that Judith Jarvis Thomson is correct when she argues that abortion is not unjust killing and is permissible. Thomson’s argument is based on a woman’s right to decide to have an abortion on the notion that a fetus is regarded as a person from the time of conception. Thomson reaches her final conclusion that abortion is not unjust killing by countering claims from anti-abortionists, such as Don Marquis, and by defining key terms anti-abortionists commonly use in their arguments. I will first begin by briefly introducing Don Marquis’s view regarding abortion. Marquis argues that it is wrong to kill a fetus because it would deprive it of having a “future like ours”, to which he further defines as the future
…show more content…
The extreme view’s argument is: “1) the fetus is a person, 2) all persons have a right to life, 3) the mother has a right to bodily autonomy, 4) the right to life is stronger than the right to bodily autonomy, and 5) therefore, abortion is impermissible.” Thomson argues that although every person has a right to life, including the fetus, a mother must also have the right to bodily autonomy. Moreover, Thomson challenges the argument that the right to life outweighs the right to bodily autonomy by using a story of a famous violinist as an analogy. Thomson asks the reader to imagine you awoke one morning and find yourself attached to a famous, unconscious violinist. The Society of Music Lovers had searched for someone with the correct blood type to help the violinist and had therefore kidnapped you and plugged the violinist’s circulatory system into yours. Through this act, your kidney would help extract both of your body’s blood. To make the story more interesting, the violinist is only required to be attached to you for nine months until he can fully recover and unplug himself. This analogy is on par with situations where the pregnancy occurred involuntarily, such as in the case of a rape. Therefore, Thomson asks whether you have the right to unplug yourself from the violinist or if you have a duty to stay attached. She further argues that the mother …show more content…
Thomson introduces three general definitions and provides evidence to either refute or support them. The first definition states that the right to life is the right to have your life sustained. Thomson refutes this definition and argues that the right to life does not simply comprise of being given the minimum needed for continued survival. In the case of the famous violinist, he does not have a right to use another individual’s body for their kidney function, though it is his minimum requirement for survival. Additionally, Thomson provides another example, the Henry Fonda case, in order to refute this first definition. In the Henry Fonda example, Thomson asks the reader to imagine that she is sick and that the only thing that will save her life is Henry Fonda’s touch on her brow. Although it would be a kind gesture for him to fly across the country to see her, Thomson does not have a right to have Henry Fonda commit that act for her. Consequently, Henry Fonda does not have any obligations to perform this act for Thomson. The second potential definition of the right to life is the right to not be killed, which is also refuted. In order to clarify her stance on this definition and support her refutation, she introduces the prospect of self-defense. Thomson
The extreme view’s argument is: “1) the fetus is a person, 2) all persons have a right to life, 3) the mother has a right to bodily autonomy, 4) the right to life is stronger than the right to bodily autonomy, and 5) therefore, abortion is impermissible.” Thomson argues that although every person has a right to life, including the fetus, a mother must also have the right to bodily autonomy. Moreover, Thomson challenges the argument that the right to life outweighs the right to bodily autonomy by using a story of a famous violinist as an analogy. Thomson asks the reader to imagine you awoke one morning and find yourself attached to a famous, unconscious violinist. The Society of Music Lovers had searched for someone with the correct blood type to help the violinist and had therefore kidnapped you and plugged the violinist’s circulatory system into yours. Through this act, your kidney would help extract both of your body’s blood. To make the story more interesting, the violinist is only required to be attached to you for nine months until he can fully recover and unplug himself. This analogy is on par with situations where the pregnancy occurred involuntarily, such as in the case of a rape. Therefore, Thomson asks whether you have the right to unplug yourself from the violinist or if you have a duty to stay attached. She further argues that the mother …show more content…
Thomson introduces three general definitions and provides evidence to either refute or support them. The first definition states that the right to life is the right to have your life sustained. Thomson refutes this definition and argues that the right to life does not simply comprise of being given the minimum needed for continued survival. In the case of the famous violinist, he does not have a right to use another individual’s body for their kidney function, though it is his minimum requirement for survival. Additionally, Thomson provides another example, the Henry Fonda case, in order to refute this first definition. In the Henry Fonda example, Thomson asks the reader to imagine that she is sick and that the only thing that will save her life is Henry Fonda’s touch on her brow. Although it would be a kind gesture for him to fly across the country to see her, Thomson does not have a right to have Henry Fonda commit that act for her. Consequently, Henry Fonda does not have any obligations to perform this act for Thomson. The second potential definition of the right to life is the right to not be killed, which is also refuted. In order to clarify her stance on this definition and support her refutation, she introduces the prospect of self-defense. Thomson