Judith Jarvis Thomson describes a fetus as being as much of a moral person as anyone, but he or she is not in fact entitled to using the mother’s precious resources. The idea of bodily autonomy is heavily stressed in her paper, “A Defense of Abortion”. Most of those who are against abortion tend to use the point that a fetus is a person as their major leg to stand on. Thomson argues that they fail to discuss what is impermissible about abortion. She provides strong reasoning for why abortion should be allowed and still makes the distinction that some cases should not permit it. “While I do argue that abortion is not impermissible, I do not argue that it is always permissible.(345).” Again and again the notion that there exists a right to life for all people is continually brought up throughout her rationale. Thoman’s arguments are centered around the example of a violinist. She tells us to imagine we were to be connected to a world famous violinist suffering from kidney failure via a machine that is keeping this musician alive. Your health is not affected, but it is required that you stay attached to the violinist for a nine months so he or she may stay alive. This can parallel what it is like to carry a child for nine months. Doing this is presented as “a great kindness” that can ultimately be supported by the idea that “a person’s right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body”(335). Thomson views this notion as absurd. She is right to believe this because while carrying a child for nine months may be worth it for those who desire a child, women who do not will not find the experience so rewarding. Some opponents of abortion may go as far as still being against abortion even in extreme cases.
…show more content…
This case would be where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. Those who do not even condone abortion in this case feel that aborting the baby would be murdering an innocent child. This brings up the interesting point of the alternative of just letting the mother die, which is seen as better. Thomson, however, thinks that a woman has a right to protect her body from a threat, even if this means killing her unborn child. She goes on to use a house analogy, where the mother's body is a house, rented to mother and child but owned solely by the mother. “A woman surely can defend her life against the threat to it posed by the unborn child, even if doing so involves its death(339).” In other words she can evict the child if she pleases to do so. In response to people who suggest a woman have their child and give him or her up for adoption, Thomson brings up the emotions she would feel knowing her child is out there somewhere. This is one of the only places in her paper where she considers the raw feelings the mother would have. Thomson and those against abortion seem to forget that the mother is a moral human, barring extreme circumstances. Generally, even if this woman feels that the right thing to do is terminate her pregnancy, it's not going to be an easy decision. She is not going to feel perfectly fine afterwards. The American Pregnancy Association recognizes a whole slew of possible negative side effects after an abortion, including guilt, shame, nightmares, depression, and suicidal thoughts(“Emotional Side Effects...”). The event of an abortion is going to have some kind of effect on her, whether that be emotional, physical, or mental. The right to life for all argument that resisters of abortion hold so dearly is eventually found to really mean that all persons have a right to not be killed unjustly. Consequently, Thomson brings up a strong point in saying that “it is by no means enough to show that the fetus is a person, and to remind us that all persons have a right to life-we need to be shown that killing the fetus violates its right to life”(341). If this were able to be proven it would mean that abortion is unjustly killing another human being. Thomson undermines the major point that opponents of abortion rely on: a fetus is a human and its right to life would make abortion murder. It must
This case would be where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. Those who do not even condone abortion in this case feel that aborting the baby would be murdering an innocent child. This brings up the interesting point of the alternative of just letting the mother die, which is seen as better. Thomson, however, thinks that a woman has a right to protect her body from a threat, even if this means killing her unborn child. She goes on to use a house analogy, where the mother's body is a house, rented to mother and child but owned solely by the mother. “A woman surely can defend her life against the threat to it posed by the unborn child, even if doing so involves its death(339).” In other words she can evict the child if she pleases to do so. In response to people who suggest a woman have their child and give him or her up for adoption, Thomson brings up the emotions she would feel knowing her child is out there somewhere. This is one of the only places in her paper where she considers the raw feelings the mother would have. Thomson and those against abortion seem to forget that the mother is a moral human, barring extreme circumstances. Generally, even if this woman feels that the right thing to do is terminate her pregnancy, it's not going to be an easy decision. She is not going to feel perfectly fine afterwards. The American Pregnancy Association recognizes a whole slew of possible negative side effects after an abortion, including guilt, shame, nightmares, depression, and suicidal thoughts(“Emotional Side Effects...”). The event of an abortion is going to have some kind of effect on her, whether that be emotional, physical, or mental. The right to life for all argument that resisters of abortion hold so dearly is eventually found to really mean that all persons have a right to not be killed unjustly. Consequently, Thomson brings up a strong point in saying that “it is by no means enough to show that the fetus is a person, and to remind us that all persons have a right to life-we need to be shown that killing the fetus violates its right to life”(341). If this were able to be proven it would mean that abortion is unjustly killing another human being. Thomson undermines the major point that opponents of abortion rely on: a fetus is a human and its right to life would make abortion murder. It must