Judith Thompson Abortion Case Study

Judith Thompson is correct in maintaining that a woman does not have a duty to preserve the life of her fetus/genetic child because it is ‘her body, her say’ since the child is inside of her. Arguing against the special obligations objection, a fetus being a family member to whom the mother has a special duty which she does not owe a stranger, because although it is genetically hers and it is a person and innocent, it is attached to her and if she does not want to support and take the risks and responsibility that comes with a child then she should not have to. The extreme case and rape-induced pregnancies both support this position of a woman not having a special obligation or duty to the fetus. Rape-induced pregnancies are an example of why a woman may not have a duty or obligation to preserve the life of her fetus. If you were to be kidnapped and attached to the kidney of a famous and well-known actor for 9 months until they were back to health, you would likely not be okay with this due to them being a stranger to you. Likewise, if you can disconnect from the famous actor who is un-debatably a person also then why should you not be able to abort a fetus that is also considered a person? This is similar to rape-induced pregnancy because it was an …show more content…
Pro-lifers argue that it is the woman’s duty to her genetic child and that it overrules her right to control her own body and the life inside of it. Pro-lifers say that the fetus is a human being, a person, and has a right to life. IAdditionally, some people argue that third parties, the abortionist, should remain neutral between the fetus and the mother’s life because women cannot easily abort themselves. Others, such as Thomson, argue that abortionists do not need to be neutral but can side with the house’s owner in situations that are life threatening