Thomson believes that, at least in many cases, an abortion performed when the mother’s life is not threatened by the pregnancy would not be unjust.
For Thompson to establish this, she needs to refute the “extreme view” against abortion, which holds that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception, and that all people have a right to life. Thus, it would be wrong to kill a foetus. Rather than focusing her argument on whether a foetus is a person – for she concedes that all people do for the sake of her argument – she instead focuses on whether it’s always morally wrong to kill something with a right to life.
The thought experiment that Thomson provides which offers us this opportunity is “The violinist”. “The violinist” is comparable …show more content…
She states that the argument against abortion can be broken down into smaller arguments. The first, that every person has a right to life and that the violinist – or a foetus – is a person, thus having a right to life. As it is always wrong to kill something that has a right to life, and unpluging yourself from the violinist would be killing him, unplugging yourself is wrong. She finds that this argument is flawed, as your own right to your own body outweighs the violinists right to life.
Using “The violinist” thought experiment, Thomson’s argument has succeeded in establishing that an abortion performed when the mother’s life isn’t at risk, would not be unjust. She has identified that having said abortion wouldn’t be killing the foetus but rather removing it’s right to another bodies uses. Although she states that through her thought experiment that there is a kindness in allowing the violinist to use your body, there is no moral issue with denying him it. It is fully your own …show more content…
This thought experiment – “People-seeds” – suggests the metaphor that foetuses are like pollen, drifting through the air, and if you were to own a window they make take root in your home. Although you may have a mesh screen in place to prevent the pollen entering, that there is a chance that the pollen make get through the screen – should it be defective; and take root anyway.
Thompson does not find that you are morally required to let said pollen grow in your home due to the defective screen, as the conclusion it leads too are illogical. She argues that pregnancy caused by rape for example, could be avoid should the woman have had a hysterectomy first. This is of course an extreme solution to prevent an unlikely situation.
In the “People-seeds situation the mother’s life is still not at risk, but as established previously her right to bodily autonomy is continuous and she may remove her consent for the seed that’s been planted, as she is not responsible for its implantation. There is no way to assure that the mother could have done something reasonable to prevent it happening; as the reasonability is
For Thompson to establish this, she needs to refute the “extreme view” against abortion, which holds that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception, and that all people have a right to life. Thus, it would be wrong to kill a foetus. Rather than focusing her argument on whether a foetus is a person – for she concedes that all people do for the sake of her argument – she instead focuses on whether it’s always morally wrong to kill something with a right to life.
The thought experiment that Thomson provides which offers us this opportunity is “The violinist”. “The violinist” is comparable …show more content…
She states that the argument against abortion can be broken down into smaller arguments. The first, that every person has a right to life and that the violinist – or a foetus – is a person, thus having a right to life. As it is always wrong to kill something that has a right to life, and unpluging yourself from the violinist would be killing him, unplugging yourself is wrong. She finds that this argument is flawed, as your own right to your own body outweighs the violinists right to life.
Using “The violinist” thought experiment, Thomson’s argument has succeeded in establishing that an abortion performed when the mother’s life isn’t at risk, would not be unjust. She has identified that having said abortion wouldn’t be killing the foetus but rather removing it’s right to another bodies uses. Although she states that through her thought experiment that there is a kindness in allowing the violinist to use your body, there is no moral issue with denying him it. It is fully your own …show more content…
This thought experiment – “People-seeds” – suggests the metaphor that foetuses are like pollen, drifting through the air, and if you were to own a window they make take root in your home. Although you may have a mesh screen in place to prevent the pollen entering, that there is a chance that the pollen make get through the screen – should it be defective; and take root anyway.
Thompson does not find that you are morally required to let said pollen grow in your home due to the defective screen, as the conclusion it leads too are illogical. She argues that pregnancy caused by rape for example, could be avoid should the woman have had a hysterectomy first. This is of course an extreme solution to prevent an unlikely situation.
In the “People-seeds situation the mother’s life is still not at risk, but as established previously her right to bodily autonomy is continuous and she may remove her consent for the seed that’s been planted, as she is not responsible for its implantation. There is no way to assure that the mother could have done something reasonable to prevent it happening; as the reasonability is