The Permissibility of Abortion: Noonan V. Thompson
The topic of abortion has been of much dispute throughout time. Some seeing abortion as the mother’s right to choice, others as murder. Most pro-life supporters argue that fetuses have the right to life and to aborting it is murder. Judith Thompson concedes that fetuses may have the right to life but that only gives the fetus a right to not be unjustly killed. Thus, if abortion is justifiable, then abortion is morally permissible. John Noonan, on the other hand, argues that once the fetus has been conceived that gives it a right to life and to end its life would be impermissible.
In order for abortion to be justifiable, Thompson must use many scenarios to explain why an abortion is justified …show more content…
They are told if they disconnect themselves the violinist will die. Thompson states that if you were unwillingly put in this situation, then most people would unplug themselves since they were not given a choice and they have a right to decide what happens to their body. In the case of life endangerment, Thompson gives a scenario in which the audience is in a very small house with a rapidly growing baby. If the baby is allowed to continue to grow, it will crush the reader. She believes that most people would kill the baby to save themselves in self-defense. Since self-defense is considered morally permissible, then abortion due to life endangerment is also morally permissible. In the case of third party intervention in an abortion, Thompson gives another scenario in which two people are fighting over a coat that would save their life. She first states that if the reader did not know then it is not their right to choose who gets the coat. Later, she states that if it belongs to one of the two people, then the reader has a right to help that person remain possession of the coat. Thompson makes a distinction here though. She states that the reader has the right to help in the second situation, but it is does mean that the reader must act. In the final case, unintentional pregnancy due to failed contraceptive, Thompson’s must first establish three things. …show more content…
Therefore, an abortion in the seventh month of the pregnancy without any complications, is more indecent then an abortion in the third month with complications. Thompson concludes by stating that although mothers have the right to abort their fetuses that does dot grant them the right to kill them if the fetus survives the abortion and that abortion is not strictly either morally permissible or morally impermissible but depends on the
The topic of abortion has been of much dispute throughout time. Some seeing abortion as the mother’s right to choice, others as murder. Most pro-life supporters argue that fetuses have the right to life and to aborting it is murder. Judith Thompson concedes that fetuses may have the right to life but that only gives the fetus a right to not be unjustly killed. Thus, if abortion is justifiable, then abortion is morally permissible. John Noonan, on the other hand, argues that once the fetus has been conceived that gives it a right to life and to end its life would be impermissible.
In order for abortion to be justifiable, Thompson must use many scenarios to explain why an abortion is justified …show more content…
They are told if they disconnect themselves the violinist will die. Thompson states that if you were unwillingly put in this situation, then most people would unplug themselves since they were not given a choice and they have a right to decide what happens to their body. In the case of life endangerment, Thompson gives a scenario in which the audience is in a very small house with a rapidly growing baby. If the baby is allowed to continue to grow, it will crush the reader. She believes that most people would kill the baby to save themselves in self-defense. Since self-defense is considered morally permissible, then abortion due to life endangerment is also morally permissible. In the case of third party intervention in an abortion, Thompson gives another scenario in which two people are fighting over a coat that would save their life. She first states that if the reader did not know then it is not their right to choose who gets the coat. Later, she states that if it belongs to one of the two people, then the reader has a right to help that person remain possession of the coat. Thompson makes a distinction here though. She states that the reader has the right to help in the second situation, but it is does mean that the reader must act. In the final case, unintentional pregnancy due to failed contraceptive, Thompson’s must first establish three things. …show more content…
Therefore, an abortion in the seventh month of the pregnancy without any complications, is more indecent then an abortion in the third month with complications. Thompson concludes by stating that although mothers have the right to abort their fetuses that does dot grant them the right to kill them if the fetus survives the abortion and that abortion is not strictly either morally permissible or morally impermissible but depends on the