Don Marquis V.S. Judith Jarvis Thomson. Two Abortion Arguments.

In Judith A. Thomson’s article, ‘A defense of abortion’ Thomson defends her view that in some cases abortion is morally permissible. She takes this stance even with the premise that fetuses upon the moment of conception are in fact regarded as persons. However one criticism of her argument would be that there is a biological relationship between mother and fetus however there is no biological relationship between you and the violinist. Having this biological relationship therefore entails special responsibility upon the mother however there is no responsibility in the case of the violinist. Thomson argues against those who are opposed to abortion with her violinist thought experiment.

When he compiles his argument he begins by providing the argument for a ‘pro-choice’ approach which makes the assumption that a fetus is a being but one who's life is not ethically applicable and can be ended without moral consequence. This gives us an insight into the apparent symmetry between this set of ideals in contrast with the beliefs of the

In this paper I will discus and examine Judith Jarvis Thomson’s view upon abortion as stated in her argument “A Defense of Abortion”. I will explain her view on the issue and look deeper into her supporting arguments she included in her essay. I will also explain whether I agree with her statements. I would also discuss whether the person can agree with my statements and reason why having an abortion make you in moral.

Thomson’s argument, “A Defense on Abortion,” is a piece written to point out the issues in many arguments made against abortion. She points out specific issues in arguments made, for example, about life beginning at conception and if that truly matters as an argument against abortion. Thomson uses multiple analogies when making her points against the arguments made against abortion. These analogies are used to show that the arguments made do not really make sense in saying it is immoral to have an abortion. These analogies do not work in all cases, and sometimes they only work in very atypical cases, but still make a strong argument. There are also objections made to Thomson’s argument, which she then replies to, which makes her argument even stronger. Her replies to these arguments are very strong, saying biology does not always equate responsibility, and that reasonable precaution is an important factor in the morality of abortion. There are some major issues in her responses to these objections.

There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.

The debate about abortion focuses on two issues; 1.) Whether the human fetus has the right to life, and, if so, 2.) Whether the rights of the mother override the rights of the fetus. The two ethicists who present strong arguments for their position, and who I am further going to discuss are that of Don Marquis and Judith Thomson. Marquis' "Future Like Ours" (FLO) theory represents his main argument, whereas, Thomson uses analogies to influence the reader of her point of view. Each argument contains strengths and weaknesses, and the point of this paper is to show you that Marquis presents a more sound argument against abortion than Thomson presents for it. An in depth overview of both arguments will be

In the article, “A Defense of Abortion” by Thomson, the author states the two points that contradict the most the right of a fetus and the right of a mother. The authors main stance, is there are abortions that are morally permissible and impermissible under certain circumstances. Thomson, makes the assumption that a fetus is a person so she can prove abortion is permissible in some situations. The author states, under three cases abortion is permissible and she further elaborates on the premise with analogies she presents. The first case is rape. She proposes an analogy, that you have been kidnapped and wake up in the hospital and they plugged you in with a violinist because it needs a kidney for nine months and if you decide to unplug it,

In the paper titled “A Defense of Abortion” Judith Thomson uses several premises to bring the readers to the conclusion that Abortion is not morally wrong. After reading her paper I have concluded, that abortion is in fact morally wrong, excluding extenuating circumstances. In this paper I will show that abortion is morally wrong by way of the following argument:

The next issue is, in Thomson’s opinion, the most important question in the abortion debate; that is, what exactly does a right to life bring about? The premise that “everyone has a right to life, so the unborn person has a right to life” suggests that the right to life is “unproblematic,” or straight-forward. We know that isn’t true. Thomson gives an analogy involving Henry Fonda. You are sick and dying and the touch of Henry Fonda’s hand will heal you. Even if his touch with save your life, you have no right to be “given the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand.” A stricter view sees the right to life as more of a right to not be killed by anybody. Here too troubles arise. In the case of the violinist, if we are to “refrain from killing the violinist,” then we must basically allow him to kill you. This contradicts the stricter view. The conclusion Thomson draws from this analogy is “that having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body—even if one needs it for life itself.” This argument again proves the basic argument wrong. The right to life isn’t as clear of an argument as I’m sure opponents of abortion would like it to be or believe it is.

In the article "A Defense of Abortion" Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous "violinist" argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's "violinist" argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not make abortion permissible.

In Thomson’s defence of abortion she argues that abortion is permissible when a mother’s life is not at risk. Working on her interpretation of the secular conservative argument, she first assumes that the premise of a foetus being a person is true, then moves onto the second premise, that a person has the right to life. Analysing what the right to life means, she first looks at the idea that the right to life is the right to have the bare minimum a person needs in order to survive. She quickly rebuts this by providing the Henry Fonda analogy and the violinist analogy. Both of these show that just because a person needs something to survive, like Henry Fonda’s cool hand or another person’s kidneys, a person doesn’t have the right to take it. With this in mind she modifies the argument so that the right to life is the right not to be killed. This she rebuffs with the violin analogy, noting that by pulling the plugs you would in effect be killing the violinist. While the violinist didn’t have the right to your kidneys, it could be argued that he does have the right for you not to intervene. However these are your kidneys, and you should not be forced to allow him continued use. Having ascertained that the right to life is not the right to the bare minimum needed to survive, nor the right not to be killed, she concludes that the right to life is the right not to be killed unjustly, or the

Thompson’s first account of the right to life follows a scenario where a woman is pregnant but will die if she carries the baby to term. Thompson makes it clear that for the sake of argument she will consider a fetus a human from the point of conception, therefore giving the fetus a right to life equivalent to that of the mother. In the scenario given, however, Thompson argues that the mother is logically able to make an act of self-defence in order to save herself, and since both her and the baby are innocent, bystanders may not intervene to stop the killing of the fetus. Thompson reasons that perhaps the extreme view of abortion may be reduced to state that abortion is permissible to save the mother’s life, but the mother must perform the abortion on herself in order for it to count as an act of self-defence. However, by leveraging the coat analogy, Thompson proves that it is logically

Judith Thomson makes many different arguments regarding the morality of abortion. One of her many arguments is that a woman should have a right to defend her own life, and therefore the extreme view of abortion is inherently false (268). To make her argument, Thomson does addresses two things. One, she addresses the opposition by confronting their core argument (that a fetus is a person and has a right to life), and although she may not agree, assumes that it is correct (266). Two, she addresses an analogous situation to pregnancy, the case of the violinist, on which she introduces her argument. By addressing the opposition, and discussing an analogous situation, Thomson comes to the conclusion that although a fetus may be a person and have a right to life, a mother has a right to self-defense, and therefore the extreme view of abortion (in which abortions are not permitted in any circumstances) is false (268).

In Judith Jarvis Thomson’s philosophy paper, A Defense of Abortion, she argues that abortion is permissible because an individual’s right over their own body outweighs a fetus’s right to life. In this paper I will focus on whether or not abortion is always permissible. First, I will present Thomson’s argument which says that abortion is sometimes permissible. I will do so by describing her “famous violinist” thought experiment. Next, I will object to Thomson’s claim and expand the scope of her argument by arguing that abortion is in fact, always permissible. I will do so by presenting a new thought experiment. Finally, I will conclude in saying that Thomson is correct and abortion is in fact only sometimes permissible.

Don Marquis’ essay, “Why Abortion is Immoral” is very different, yet similar to Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”. Although Marquis is opposed to the thought of abortion, he explains that it is acceptable in some cases. It is written, “It is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being”. The reasons given for abortion to be acceptable are that the pregnancy or childbirth is life threatening to the mother, abortion before implantation, or abortion after a rape (pg 475). Thomson also views rape and the illness or death as a result of pregnancy or birth as acceptable reasons for a woman to have an abortion. It is obvious that if a woman did not consent to become pregnant and it was out of her control, she should be able to make the decision as to what to do with her body. In the case of the pregnancy causing harm to the mother is also reasonable because if the mother was to die during birth, could the child be promised a life equal to that of what they would have had with their mother? Marquis talks about how the death of any human being is the “greatest loss” because that person loses their whole future (pg 476). They do not receive the same chance at life as a person who