Judith Thomson's Arguments Against Abortion

The Inviolability of a human life is something that essentially all people hold to be true. But in the case of abortion the waters become muddied and all discussion turns from peaceful discussion too hateful rhetoric. What Judith Thomson does allows some leeway so that a form of discussion can commence. She tries to break down her opposition’s main talking points by allowing for one of the highly contingent positions to be true for the sake of discussion. She does this so that she can state that even with the allowance that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception is does not allow an anti-abortion argument any more validity. I believe Miss Thomson to be mistaken in all cases and therefore will refute some of what she has to offer. Miss Thomson starts her paper with an attempt to dismantle her opposition’s credibility so that she sounds more credible herself. She states that all the arguments anti-abortionists have proposed a slippery slope fallacy. However, all she has done here is to have made an anecdotal statement about how no one can decide when life begins, and anything that comes close to this argument should not be held as credible. She gives the comparison of an acorn and how compared to a giant oak and how they have virtually nothing in common. (Judith Thomson 349) I have also heard the argument that a human fetus and a pig fetus are essentially the same, but how can the two be compared? Yes, a fetus and a fully grown human are very different, yet a human fetus will always grow to be a fully autonomous and unique human being and will never grow to be a giant oak or a humongous unintelligent animal. It may sound like a slippery slope argument to ask, “Well, when does life start?” but when not asking that question lead to the death should we not be required to ask it? I understand that this is not the rock that Thomson’s argument stands on; nevertheless, anecdotal statements like this are not easily ignored. It would be asinine to allow an under the table comment such as this to go by without it being addressed. From here she sets up her real argument. She puts together a list of prerequisites that for the greater part everyone must follow for her argument to work. Reasoning such as, “the fetus is a person from the moment of conception.” And, ”the mother has the right to decide what shall happen to her body.” (Judith Thomson 350) All of this lead up is so that she can compose the quandary: should someone be required to sacrifice them self for the good of another? She uses this example to prove her point. Imagine a case where you wake up in a hospital bed and you are connected to a famous violinist and the only caveat keeping him alive is your blood pumping through his veins. Should you be required to stay …show more content…
You are in a room and it is stuffy. You open your window to let in a cool evening breeze, but all of a sudden a burglar jumps through the window. The logical person would remove the burglar from their house and be done with it. But is that not immoral? You did open the window which allowed the burglar to jump through, should you not be required to allow him to stay? She goes on to say it would be even more absurd if she had placed bars outside her window and the burglar still made it in that she should be required to allow him to stay. This argument seems absurd, but it could potentially help her argument. If it was not the women’s intention in the first place to become pregnant, why should she be required to go through with something she did not want to happen? Well of course this is a compelling argument when phrased like this; however, the discussion of the difference between opening a window and having intercourse is necessary. When the women opened the window did she open it so that someone could jump in? We need to know the main purpose of opening a window? Well, if I take the example given by Miss Thomson as fact; the main purpose of an open window is to let in the breeze in, thus making her room no longer