Summary: A Defense Of Abortion By Judith Thomson

Abortion has been one of the biggest controversies of all time. In “A Defense of Abortion” Judith Thomson argues, a fetus does not have the right to life or the ability to use someone else’s body. She explains the differences between Good Samaritan and Minimally Decent Samaritan. My objection is that Thomson’s experiment is not realistic, a person has to follow the responsibilities originated from their behavior, and a parent has a commitment to care for their child, and counts as a Minimally Decent Samaritan. Thomson arguments against my criticism would be; the fetus’ rights are not greater than the mother, there’s a difference between consenting to sex and consenting to pregnancy, a child has to be born to have rights.
In Thomson’s thought …show more content…
The violinist is a stranger and whereas the fetus is the pregnant person's child. The person does not have an emotional bond with the violinist whereas they have an emotional bond with the fetus, given that the fetus is the person's child. The violinist does not belong to the person; it's not their responsibility to save the violinist life. Having an abortion kills the fetus while choosing to unplug the violinist just lets him die. Abortion is an act of direct killing the unborn child, while it is not a violating the violinist right. Parents have obligations to their children that they do not have to strangers. Another argument against Thomson’s position is that the person is ethically obliged to be plugged into the violinist. The woman had consent sex therefore, has consented the fetus to use their body. A better experiment would be a woman is on a plane with a child which she knows. She has the obligation to care for the innocent child for nine months with the child on the plane. If she doesn’t want the burden to foster for the child, which she believes has intruded her life; she has the right to violate his right to life, which is pushing him off the