Every individual is entitled to basic inalienable rights to life liberty and property . In particular, one 's basic right to life is manifested not simply on one 's ability to subsist but to live a meaningful life . This is by being able to develop oneself to the fullest, to enhance one 's skills and talents, and to nurture oneself with comfort, security and enjoyment in every aspect of living as much as possible
Because of the said basic right to life, it is a generally accepted
br principle that abortion is impermissible to many society and thus, it is viewed to be an immoral act . Abortion pertains to the willful killing of a human fetus through its removal from the maternal womb before its actual birth ( Abortion ' 26
It is generally viewed that the fetus has a right to life even from the moment of conception since it should already be considered not merely a potential human person but indeed a person already worthy of protection and care like any other individual . To cause a fetus ' death through abortion is morally wrong since it violates one of the basic rights of an already considered person, that is, the right to life of the fetus
In Judith Jarvis Thompson 's A Defense of Abortion ' a different view of abortion is presented (47 . She contends that even if it is to be perceived that a fetus is a person worthy of the basic right to life still, it does not follow that abortion must be condemned just for that reason of the latter 's right to life . She asserted that abortion involves another individual, and another life for that matter . This means that the mother -her right to life and to her body- must also be considered
The right to abort or not to abort is anchored on the decision of the mother as the bearer of another life, that is, the fetus . It is in her whom the right to nurture or not to nurture a fetus belongs . It is her choice whether to continually be plugged ' or to unplugged ' herself from the fetus in her womb...
The main pro-life against abortion argument goes like this: Killing a human life is wrong and a fetus is a human life; therefore, killing a fetus is wrong. However, the debate is always surrounded by the second premise which is: at what point of a pregnancy is a fetus a human being. As medical science and technology progress, the line might shift back and forth. For the sake of this argument, I will neglect the second premise; I will say that a fetus is a human being at the time of conception. Now, we will have to re-examine the first premise. In this paper, to show that killing a human life is justified under some circumstances, I wish to use the experiments which were used in A Defense of Abortion by JudithJarvisThomson while making some modifications to her experiments; therefore, I will show that abortion is justified under some circumstances.
In A Defense of Abortion, Thomson uses an experiment to illustrate pregnancy in cases of rape.
“You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last...
Why Abortion is Not Impermissible
The legal status of abortion is regarded as one of the most long disputed and controversial ethical issues in the world of politics, presumably because of the moral dilemmas that it is thought to present. Many of those who oppose of the right to abort may do so from a theistic standpoint, which leads to more debates regarding the separation between church and state. But abortion is not something that should be forbidden by law. All adult human beings have the right to autonomy and so it should be the woman’s choice, not the government’s, to deem whether or not the execution of abortion would be a viable option for herself. “Pro-Life” advocates tend to centralize their arguments around the premise that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception and that intentional expulsion of a fetus is essentially infanticide. However, JudithJarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion” dismisses this initial claim altogether, asserting that even if an unborn fetus is granted the same rights to life as that of a person, its status as a humanistic being is extraneous. While both entities are equally entitled to their right to life, the mother is entitled to the right of autonomy, thus the question of whether or not one should reserve the right to abort should be up to none other than the mother herself.
The Initial Moral...
A Defense of Abortion in Pregnancy Reduction
In this paper I will discuss the relevance of J.J. Thomson’s argument in her article, A Defense of Abortion, to that of pregnancy reduction and if there is any relevance, if there are exceptions or situations where that might change. J.J. Thomson’s argument in A Defense of Abortion is that the one thing a person has rights to is his/her body and the right to control what happens with it. Thomson also states that there is an innate desire and need for self-preservation that we all have that must additionally be considered.
To support her argument, Thomson uses the example of a violinist where an unconscious violinist would only stay alive if you were constantly attached to him to compensate for his fatal kidney ailment. She states, “If he is unplugged from you now, he will die: but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you”. Her premise is that a person’s right to life does not include the right to use another person’s body and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life or deprive him of the use of your body – to which he has no right.
Another example Thomson uses to make her argument is that opponents use that abortion is “directly killing a child” therefore killing an innocent person is morally...
...Thomson on Abortion
In one of the more frequently discussed articles of contemporary philosophy, JudithThomson addresses a woman’s moral rights to abort a pregnancy instead of giving birth to an undesired child. She applies this dilemma to many different circumstances, including those of rape, as well as a life-endangering pregnancy. Most debates against abortion argue the premise that a fetus has the same moral status as a full grown adult with the right to live, which implies that abortion is equivalent to first-degree murder. Thomson argues that even if this argument were true, a woman would still be within her moral rights to abort a pregnancy regardless of if it is life-threatening or not. Through a sequence of colorful scenarios, Thomson affirms that a right to live does not entitle one to the right to use another’s body, or the right to be kept alive. Abortion is not an unjust killing and therefore not a violation of one’s rights. Even when assuming the hypothetical premise that a fetus is in fact a person, Thomson still argues, “nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months in order to keep another person alive” (Thomson, 96). Baruch Brody responds to this by suggesting that...
...JudithJarvis Thomson's defence on abortion
Most arguments concerning the abortion issue hinge on the moral status or standing of the fetus with respect to the rights it possesses and the obligations that are directly owed to it. These arguments typically fall into two commonly termed categories: pro-life and pro-choice. Pro-life advocates tend to place the status of the fetus first. They argue human beings including a fetus, have an intrinsic value that confers them the right not to be unjustly killed. Conversely, some pro-choice advocates argue the fetus lacks a virtuous characteristic that affords it any rights or significant morals, this is usually termed the 'personhood' argument.
Other pro-choice advocates such as JudithJarvisThomson argue contrary to the moral argument (personhood) they argue for body autonomy which places the interest of the woman first. Central to the view is the claim that no human being regardless of their moral status is permitted to use another human beings body against his or her will as a means to an end or an end in itself. Therefore the human fetus does not have the right to occupy the woman's body for survival if it is against her will.
It is viewed as an act of great generosity to continue with a pregnancy (the good Samaritan) primarily, because the woman freely lends her body to support another human-being 'voluntarily. With...
...In the article ‘A Defense of Abortion’ JudithJarvisThomson provides an argument that abortion in some cases is morally permissible, because all persons have a right to life. Thomson defends the case by the premise that life begins at the moment of conception; therefore a fetus has the right to life. At the same point Thomson argues that women with unplanned pregnancies that occur from acts of rape have the right to decide what happens to their body. Yet Thomson suggests the unborn child’s right to life should outweigh the mother’s right to autonomy. As a result, the fetus may not be killed. According to Thomson an abortion should not be performed in any circumstance, unless the mother’s life is at risk. In that particular case Thomson grants the mother’s right to life to be greater than the fetus.
Thomson argues for her conclusion by using the violinist scenario. According to the scenario you wake up in the morning to find yourself attached to a famous unconscious violinist. The violinist has a fatal kidney impairment and the Society of Music Lovers searched through all of the medical records to find out that you are the only person with the matching blood type that will save the violinist. The music lover society has kidnapped you and plugged the violinist’s circulatory system into your...
...JudithThomson: A Defense of AbortionJudithThomson article simply outlines the right of abortion with women. Judith presents the argument that everyone has a right to life. However, throughout the article she underlines key arguments and give multiple examples and analogies to further prove her point. Thomson began by saying that because everyone has a right to life, it is automatically assumed that the fetus is a person, and therefore has a right to life. Furthermore, the mother does have a right and say so to what she wants to happen to her body, however, it is argued that a person's right to life is stronger than a mother's right to decide what happens to her body, concluding that the fetus may not be killed and an abortion cannot be performed. Judith gives the other side of the argument throughout the article and picks up all the flaws of the main argument that everyone makes.
The first analogy that she provides, questions the exception of the case of rape versus the fetus's right to life. She provides an example where a person is kidnapped by a group called the Society of Music Lovers. The Society of Music Lovers plugs that person up to a famous unconscious violinist that has been found to have a kidney failure ailment. In this situation the person has the right to say unplug me however, many would look...
...A Defense of A Defense of Abortion
In her article, A Defense of Abortion, JudithJarvisThomson argues that in some though not all cases, women have a right to abortion due to property rights in regards to their body, and the undue burden against these rights that would be placed on women if they are to be made responsible for any and all pregnancies.Thomson uses a variety of sometimes strange analogies to make her point that even if we give in to the argument that a fetus is a person, and thus has a right to life, this right to life does not necessarily ensure a right to sustain that life by using another person’s property, in this case the mother’s body, against her will.
Thomson first asks us to consider the following case. You wake up and find yourself in a hospital bed hooked up to a famous violinist. It is then explained to you that you’ve been kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers because you happen to be the only person whose blood type is compatible with the violinist’s, who is suffering from a kidney disease, and will die unless you remain plugged into him for nine months. Keeping in mind that both you and the violinist are innocent parties, and that both you and the violinist will walk out of the hospital alive and unharmed when the nine months are up, are you morally obligated to remain connected to...