Thompson's Argument In Favor Of Abortion

Thompson uses the example of a famous violinist in dire need of medical attention, where the reader is the only possible remedy so and is forcefully captured without consent, so that they may be connected to the violinist through a lifeline to cure his disease. The reader is told they must remain in their bed for however long as it takes for the violinist to recover, even if that means the reader must sacrifice their own life in order to save the famous violinist. Thompson is pro-choice advocate, this analogy supports her argument because the reader has absolutely no obligation to the violinist, but is forced to become subject to him anyway. This can relate similarly to if a woman who were raped, she has no obligation to a child she would …show more content…
I’ve always had a neutral opinion about abortion, however I do believe that it is a reasonable solution to unwanted pregnancies in which a woman is either raped, if the child is a danger to the woman’s health, or cannot she simply cannot financially support a child. Thompson and English would both agree with me, in each respective essay an analogy was used to convey to the reader the experience of being forced into a situation without consent. English furthers that argument with another analogy which defends a women’s right to kill. She describes the reader as a highly trained surgeon who is kidnapped by hypnotized attackers, who plan to wipe all knowledge of medicine the reader had acquired in order to destroy the readers career. Would the reader not have the right, in self-defense, to kill the hypnotized attackers even though they have no control over their actions? The same can be said of women who placed in an unwanted …show more content…
I felt that in a lot of cases, even some of the pro-life essays held a similar view on the matter, but I’ve also come to understand the deeper issues that lie beneath the controversy of abortion, rather than it simply being an issue about woman’s right to her own body, but also how we define personhood. Marquis completely ignores this idea, he argues that it doesn’t matter whether or not the fetus is human, it only matters that it will become one, and this however did not convince me. The FLO of a fetus cannot be determined, the future life of a fetus is unknowable, what if the child were to live a life of poverty and disease, would that be a life worth living? The future life of a child cannot be determined by the FLO account, it can only