Abortion: Big Picture, By Judith Jarvis Thomson

In her article, “The Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson states an analogy involving a violinist. She first states that you are allowed to unplug yourself in the violinist scenario, second abortion after rape is analogous to the violinist scenario, therefore, you should be allowed to unplug yourself and be allowed to abort after rape (Chwang, Abortion slide 12). In this paper, I will argue that abortion is morally acceptable even if the fetus is considered a person. This paper will criticize premise two from the traditional argument against abortion string that killing innocent persons is wrong (Chwang, Abortion slide 9). Following the violinist analogy will be an objection to this analogy and my respons to them. One of the

Abortion is arguably one of the most debated topics in the modern 20th century. The sides argued in this debate are pro-life and pro-choice. This debate can be found in politics, planned parenthood discussions, and even philosophy. Many philosophers have tired to settle this debate in terms of morality. Don Marquis addresses this debate in his article “Why abortion is immoral” supporting the pro-life choice. On the other hand, Judith Jarvis Thomson supports the pro-choice position in her article “A Defense of Abortion”. After reading both articles and critically analyzing them I believe that Thompson presents a much more persuasive case.

Thomson uses this story as an analogy to unwanted pregnancy. She argues that regardless of the violinist’s right to life, the kidnapped victim is under no moral obligation to carry the burden of the violinist, even if in denying his body to him, the inevitable consequence is the death of the violinist. The analogous counterpart is a woman who becomes pregnant by rape, failed contraceptives or any other involuntary cause. Hence becoming attached to another being whose survival now depends on her decision to stay connected (pregnant) for nine months or to disconnect (through abortion), leading the dependent being (the fetus) to die. By presenting this scenario, she aims to prove that a pregnant woman does not violate the fetus’ right to life by aborting any more than the kidnapped person violates the violinist’s right to

Here Thomson assumes that both scenarios will reveal the same conclusion. Just as the reader (1) is under no moral obligation to use his body to support the violinist, a woman (2) is under no obligation to support a human fetus. So Thomson's analogy has directed the reader to the conclusion, that abortion as in the case of unhooking oneself from the violinist is sometimes morally permissible.

In “A Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is not impermissible in some cases. Thomson begins her writing, noting that abortion being permissible (for most) depends on whether or not a fetus is considered a person. For her argument, Thomson assumes that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. She attempts to show that still, with this granted, abortion is permissible in some cases. Thomson points to a vital premise in the argument opposing abortion; that the right to life outweighs other rights with which it conflicts. Thomson believes this to be false, and uses a number or thought experiments to exercise her idea. She presents the violinist case to highlight the implications of a “right to life” argument.

Judith Jarvis Thomson argues in “A Defense of Abortion” that abortion in cases of rape is acceptable because of the element of coercion. She makes a preliminary assumption that the foetus has a right to life, but she argues that this right to life does not necessarily include the right not to be killed. She makes this argument in large part through a particularly vivid analogy of an unconscious violinist. Thomson claims that the analogy defends abortion in cases of rape by showing that if a woman’s autonomy is damaged she has a right to reclaim it; that right is not an unjust reason for denying a person the resources needed to live, which means that the violinist is not killed unjustly if he dies as a result of her exercising autonomy. That means that his right to life is not infringed upon by killing him if a woman is coerced into caring for him and then refuses to continue to do so, thereby killing him. I argue that in fact this logic extends beyond cases of rape because most pregnant women are subject to coercion and have a right to reassert their autonomy by denying foetus’ use of their bodies.

In her article “A Defense Against Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thomson explores the permissibility of abortion through both the rights of a fetus and of a woman, and further argues that abortion is sometimes permissible under circumstantial situations. Thomson offers multiple thought-experiments, but the one I am focusing on in my paper is her burglar-based argument. In short, this situation involves you leaving your window open, knowingly increasing the risk of a burglar entering your home. She further adds that you have implemented bars on the windows with the specific intent to keep burglars out, but the bars are defective and allow the burglar to make his way in. This situation is analogous to a woman intentionally having sexual

Since the practice of abortion has began there has always been the question of whether it was the killing of an innocent person or saving the life of one that already exists. The common person sees abortion in two different ways being it is or it is not a form of murder. Abortion used as a medical term is defined as the “termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.” This paper will discuss an argument in A Defense of Abortion by Judith Jarvis Thomson where some cases for instance defending ones own life gives moral cause for abortion and also make claims to refute all circumstance of abortion.

Thomson’s argues that abortion is morally permissible. She grants, for the sake of the argument, that it is indeed the case that every fetus is a person and subsequently possesses a right to life. However, she also states that she finds these arguments ultimately insufficient to constitute abortion, in its

Explication : Judith Jarvis Thomson in her article “A Defense of Abortion”, argues “that even if the fetus is a person from conception (and hence has full right to life), a woman still has a right to an abortion” (Thomson 1971 438). Thomson further argues that in certain circumstances an abortion is morally wrong and should not be carried out if such circumstances presents itself (Thomson 1971 438). She then proceeds to give an extreme example where a woman is kidnapped and tied to a violinist through her kidneys to save his life. Essentially, she compares being tethered to the violinist to being pregnant and how a person has the right to remove herself, but not the right to do further damage to the child or violinist if they survive after the fact. Although, Thomson, in her pursuit to defend abortion, has made the women who aborts the fetus

Thomson’s example shows that he is in support of the woman and her having the right to say no. She has the right to walk away and say no to the violinist, even if this means he dies. It is her body, and she did not give the violinist permission to use it. The woman and the violinist are examples of rape in this case. If a man physically rapes a woman, and she becomes pregnant, she has a right to an abortion because she has not given the man or the fetus the right to use her body. Although the abortion will kill the fetus, the woman’s action is not unjust because the fetus did not have the right to use her body.

The final connection between the two arguments is the mention that in the violinist argument you were kidnapped and did not volunteer to have the violinist plugged into your circulatory system. That being said, in a situation where a woman became pregnant out of rape, similarly she did not volunteer to end up in this scenario. Therefore, to say that it is morally permissible to kill the violinist but not a fetus would be contradictory. Thomson’s argument here shows that in some cases abortion may be morally permissible, such as the case of rape or if the pregnancy may end the mother’s life.

In her essay A Defense of Abortion, Judith Jarvis Thomson uses an analogy of a person who is involuntarily subjected to saving the life of a famous violinist, comparing the hypothetical situation to a woman carrying an unwanted fetus. As the analogy goes, this person must be connected to the circulatory system of the violinist, for nine months, in order to save their life. To unplug from the violinist would kill them, a parallel to performing an abortion. This analogy is useful to a degree, particularly regarding reinforcement of the argument that an abortion doesend a life, regardless of its maturity. However, her argument is simplified in such a way that a debate of its depth cannot be. Her analogy extends as far as the nine months that are

Thomson uses plenty of experiments to defend her argument, but the most famous include a world-class violinist. The life-support violinist thought experiment relates to the abortion debate by presenting that both events would take the woman by surprise. Both violinist and the fetus are attached to the woman 's body, which both need in order to live. They both will eventually liberate her after nine months. Thomson assumes that all fetuses are persons and that every person has a right to life, although she argues that being a person does not, by itself, entitle you to use someone else’s resources, even if those resources are needed in order to preserve your life (Thomson, “A Defense of abortion”, pg. 348). She explains why abortion is morally permissible using different circumstances of becoming pregnant, such as rape or unplanned pregnancy. Thomson says that a woman has the right to bodily autonomy, and the right, in

Judith Thomson’s argument is that the fetus does have the right to life, but it does not necessarily have the right to invade a woman’s body if it is not wanted. She provides two examples to show where abortion may be acceptable. The first is the “famous violinist” example. A person is kidnapped and attached to a famous violinist who has a fatal kidney problem, and only your body can heal him, but you must stay attached to him for nine months. The point of this argument is that although the violinist has the right to life, he does not have the right to use your body, therefore you have every right to unplug him. This example can best be related to rape, and the unwanted pregnancy that may occur.