For Judith Jarvis Thomson abortion is something that should be a negative right, provided that it has certain guidelines. One in which abortions are neither a right that should be given nor taken away. Thomson begins by arguing that there is no right time to mark the point in which a person should begin to be considered a person. She then gives an example of an oak tree and how it is not called an oak tree at the beginning, but goes through stages to become an oak tree. Nevertheless, Thomson does agree that a fetus becomes a person at some point before it’s born, even though there is no indication to when this occurs. However, if fetuses were considered people right at conception, Thomson claims that abortions wouldn’t be permitted.
…show more content…
In a nightmare like analogy Thomson composes a world in which it would be permitted for you to kill a child in order to save your own life. In situations where someone is threatening your life and you’re the victim you have a claim to use self-defense. For this reasoning all pro-life arguments for letting the mother die naturally, due to the fetus posing as a threat, cannot be justified. Then Thomson argues that, even if pro-life viewers didn’t oppose women to abort themselves it wouldn’t be safe. This leads Thomson to state that a third party should be able to assist a woman in her pursuit to abort. Since people have a right of ownership to their own bodies, Thomson claims there should be no reason why a third party shouldn’t be able to provide women service to reclaim their rights.
Thomson states that there are some who believe that people are initialed to the very minimal conditions to continue on living. Then she argues that even though a person has a right to life, it doesn’t allow others rights to be seized to promote that person’s own life to continue. This goes on to say that a third party also can’t acquire these rights. Even though this right may take away the dependent person’s right to life, they still don’t have a right against the independent person to help …show more content…
Anti-pro-choice viewers claim that, right as conception occurs a person is created, making it murder to have an abortion. Then anti-pro-life viewers will just claim the opposite of these claims is true. Marquis states that these claims alone are rendered inadequate. Then when faced with justifiable principles, those who are pro-life will only find moral principles that are too broad to grasp the true concepts in which to hold a plausible argument. Then those for pro-abortion will find principles that are too narrow, due to trying to find reasons for why killing fetuses isn’t murder.
Nevertheless, Marquis states that there needs to be a clear basis in which a person has the right personhood, to know on what grounds a fetus is considered a person. Marquis goes on to say that, the reasoning for why it’s wrong to kill is because the person that was killed lost the right to a life of actions and emotion they would have had otherwise. That being said Marquis claims that all animals have a right to life as well as humans. This goes without saying that fetuses have a right to a future worth living like everyone else, even if they are not considered
In a nightmare like analogy Thomson composes a world in which it would be permitted for you to kill a child in order to save your own life. In situations where someone is threatening your life and you’re the victim you have a claim to use self-defense. For this reasoning all pro-life arguments for letting the mother die naturally, due to the fetus posing as a threat, cannot be justified. Then Thomson argues that, even if pro-life viewers didn’t oppose women to abort themselves it wouldn’t be safe. This leads Thomson to state that a third party should be able to assist a woman in her pursuit to abort. Since people have a right of ownership to their own bodies, Thomson claims there should be no reason why a third party shouldn’t be able to provide women service to reclaim their rights.
Thomson states that there are some who believe that people are initialed to the very minimal conditions to continue on living. Then she argues that even though a person has a right to life, it doesn’t allow others rights to be seized to promote that person’s own life to continue. This goes on to say that a third party also can’t acquire these rights. Even though this right may take away the dependent person’s right to life, they still don’t have a right against the independent person to help …show more content…
Anti-pro-choice viewers claim that, right as conception occurs a person is created, making it murder to have an abortion. Then anti-pro-life viewers will just claim the opposite of these claims is true. Marquis states that these claims alone are rendered inadequate. Then when faced with justifiable principles, those who are pro-life will only find moral principles that are too broad to grasp the true concepts in which to hold a plausible argument. Then those for pro-abortion will find principles that are too narrow, due to trying to find reasons for why killing fetuses isn’t murder.
Nevertheless, Marquis states that there needs to be a clear basis in which a person has the right personhood, to know on what grounds a fetus is considered a person. Marquis goes on to say that, the reasoning for why it’s wrong to kill is because the person that was killed lost the right to a life of actions and emotion they would have had otherwise. That being said Marquis claims that all animals have a right to life as well as humans. This goes without saying that fetuses have a right to a future worth living like everyone else, even if they are not considered