Introduction (45)
In this paper, I will argue that Judith Thomson is right to claim that, even if a fetus is a person, abortion is still permissible if the pregnancy was unwilling (i.e rape) or if the pregnancy is a threat to the mother’s health/life.
Exposition (492) In Thomson’s paper, she discusses abortion considering the following is true: The human embryo is a person. And so my exposition and my argument will follow the same premise. She does not argue that abortion is permissible or impermissible, but rather she argues that abortion is permissible in certain cases such as rape or a threatful pregnancy. Firstly, I will discuss Thomson’s explanation for forced pregnancy and why abortion is permissible if it a pregnancy resulting from …show more content…
I wholeheartedly agree with her approach to abortion, yet I am compelled to say that her arguments, or rather the points that she tries to convey to the audience, are not fortified as many an objections and counterclaims can arise challenging the premise and basis of Thomson in support for abortion. The fault lines I will question and expand upon to better Thomson’s argument is the following: If a fetus is given human rights, would the killing of the fetus be infanticide; Is it morally just to abort a fetus when it is given human rights, even in self defense; Isn’t the mother responsible for the baby since she is the one that got pregnant; why are we not obligated to be good samaritans and carry out the pregnancy rather than aborting …show more content…
To do this, I will bring about a scenario used by Thomson of using a coat during drastic times. The weather is very cold and Jones has a jacket that can keep him warm and also alive, but Smith is also in need of the same jacket. It would be ludicrous to tell Jones to give his own jacket to Smith to save him, it would be out of question to even consider choosing between the two for who can have the jacket. Because Jones owns the jacket. Because Jones needs the jacket. Similarly, the pregnant mother in question owns her body and has absolute say in what happens to her body. Yes, it would be absolutely generous of Jones to give his jacket to Smith and save Smith while sacrificing himself, but it would not be the most logical thing to do. It would be more harmful to Jones himself to give his jacket away and it brings into the question of whether or not being a good samaritan, and transfixing oneself to the ethical and moral justification that comes with generosity is worth it. I propose the following to support Thomson’s philosophy as a supplementary argument. The basis of this question boils down to whether Smith deserves the jacket or Jones; whether the mother or the fetus has the right to life. Aside from acting out in self defense, it can be said that the mother is more
In this paper, I will argue that Judith Thomson is right to claim that, even if a fetus is a person, abortion is still permissible if the pregnancy was unwilling (i.e rape) or if the pregnancy is a threat to the mother’s health/life.
Exposition (492) In Thomson’s paper, she discusses abortion considering the following is true: The human embryo is a person. And so my exposition and my argument will follow the same premise. She does not argue that abortion is permissible or impermissible, but rather she argues that abortion is permissible in certain cases such as rape or a threatful pregnancy. Firstly, I will discuss Thomson’s explanation for forced pregnancy and why abortion is permissible if it a pregnancy resulting from …show more content…
I wholeheartedly agree with her approach to abortion, yet I am compelled to say that her arguments, or rather the points that she tries to convey to the audience, are not fortified as many an objections and counterclaims can arise challenging the premise and basis of Thomson in support for abortion. The fault lines I will question and expand upon to better Thomson’s argument is the following: If a fetus is given human rights, would the killing of the fetus be infanticide; Is it morally just to abort a fetus when it is given human rights, even in self defense; Isn’t the mother responsible for the baby since she is the one that got pregnant; why are we not obligated to be good samaritans and carry out the pregnancy rather than aborting …show more content…
To do this, I will bring about a scenario used by Thomson of using a coat during drastic times. The weather is very cold and Jones has a jacket that can keep him warm and also alive, but Smith is also in need of the same jacket. It would be ludicrous to tell Jones to give his own jacket to Smith to save him, it would be out of question to even consider choosing between the two for who can have the jacket. Because Jones owns the jacket. Because Jones needs the jacket. Similarly, the pregnant mother in question owns her body and has absolute say in what happens to her body. Yes, it would be absolutely generous of Jones to give his jacket to Smith and save Smith while sacrificing himself, but it would not be the most logical thing to do. It would be more harmful to Jones himself to give his jacket away and it brings into the question of whether or not being a good samaritan, and transfixing oneself to the ethical and moral justification that comes with generosity is worth it. I propose the following to support Thomson’s philosophy as a supplementary argument. The basis of this question boils down to whether Smith deserves the jacket or Jones; whether the mother or the fetus has the right to life. Aside from acting out in self defense, it can be said that the mother is more