Critique of A Defense of Abortion   Term Paper ID:34581 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: A critique of essay "A Defense of Abortion."... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 1 sources, 11 Citations, APA Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: A critique of the essay "A Defense of Abortion" by Judith Jarvis Thomson. Analyzes Thomson's agreement with abortion opponents that a fetus is a person. Competing rights to life issue of fetus and pregnant woman. Thomson's contention that women have the right to control their bodies. Paper Introduction: Critique of A Defense of Abortion\' In her essay titled A Defense of Abortion Judith Jarvis Thomsongrants abortion opponents\' argument that a fetus is a person from themoment of conception She then supposes that abortion opponents\' arrive atthe conclusion that abortion is morally wrong because the fetus\'s right tolife supercedes the mother\'s desire to decide what happens with her body p To test this premise that the right to life supercedesthe right to control one\'s body Thomson offers the example of the Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. She also argues that abortions may be wrong in some cases, such as awoman in her seventh month of pregnancy who wants an abortion to she cantravel abroad (1971, p. Philosophy and PublicAffairs, 1, 24 -251. 243). The donor must remain hooked up to theviolinist for at least nine months to save the violinist's life (Thomson,1971, p. Thomson's refutationdoes not work if people who oppose abortions oppose direct killing in allcases, or at least in cases where the threat is not malicious orintentional. But what about the argument that a woman doesnot have the right to perform an abortion because woman's bodies are madespecifically to bear children - to nurture fetuses - and to perform anabortion would be to violate this fundamental, natural law? For example, Thomson arguesthat no one is morally or legally required to help another person whendoing so may endanger their own person. Thomson acknowledges that this situation might beone where the fetus has a rhght to the use nf its mother's body (1971, p.247). The latter situation seems closer to Thomson's example than a rape.Specifically, the donor in the violinist case is more like a woman who goesto sleep one night and wakes up in a hospital room the next morning to findout she's been artificially inseminated, without her knowledge and probablyagainst her will. But if the right to have an abortion is based on the mother's rightto control her body, then the decision to use contraception or not is herright, as is the decision to have an abortion if unprotected sex results inpregnancy. However, she contends that if they have takenprecautions against pregnancy (or even if they haven't, it seems), they donot have an obligation to recognize any such special relationship (1971, p.25 ). 243). Thomson notes immediately that one problem with her dying violinistcase is that the donor was hooked up without his or her consent. 241). She,therefore, seems to be arguing that, if the fetus is a person, then thefetus and the mother have competing rights that would allow a mother tohave an abortion in many but not all cases. Abortionopponents would oppose the abortion in her case because their basicargument is that the fetus's right to life takes precedence over themother's right to control her body. For example, in the case of the 'people seeds' she suggests asituation where a woman's birth control fails and she becomes pregnant.This is where Thomson anticipates the Price of Sex argument, that a womanessentially loses her right to control her body - i.e., have an abortion -when she consciously decides to perform an act - have sex - that could leadto pregnancy. But to make that argument, Thomson must assume that abortionopponents believe it is permissible for a person to kill another when theother threatens their life without malice or intent. Thomson argues that Smithclearly has a superior right to claim how the coat will be used, and thatthird parties (meaning doctors and medical professionals) should recognizethis superior right (1971, pp. Thomson argues that the right to life "consists not in the right notto be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly" (1971, p.245). 243-244). A person wakes one day to find themselves hooked up to a dyingviolinist. That is, no one is required to be aGood Samaritan. But again, here, Thomsondoes not seem to be responding adequately to abortion opponents' beliefthat pregnancy is the course of nature if certain other events (sex,basically) occur and that women's bodies are the natural receptacles forfetuses, and abortion violates this course of nature. Is she notmerely exercising her right to control her body? Thus, she argues that pregnant women who are prevented bylaw from having abortions are the only people required to be GoodSamaritans. Critique of 'A Defense of Abortion' In her essay titled "A Defense of Abortion," Judith Jarvis Thomsongrants abortion opponents' argument that a fetus is a person from themoment of conception. In other words, any person'sfundamental right to exist outweighs the right not to be uncomfortable.Thus, the fetus's right just to continue being a person outweighs themother's right not to be uncomfortable with or inconvenienced by apregnancy. Thomson argues here that the mother can perform an abortion when thepregnancy threatens her life because both she and the fetus are innocentvictims of the threat posed by the pregnancy and the woman has a right todefend her own life (1971, p. If not acting to kill the fetusresults in the death of the mother, then that is something less than murderin the mother's case and is permissible (Thomson, 1971, p. This brings Thomson to another assumption, that because the body isthe woman's body, she has a superior right against all others to decide howit will be used (1971, p. Therefore, if Thomson is to remain true to her position that theright to have an abortion depends on the mother's right to control her bodyeven if the fetus is a person at conception, then her argument would bestronger here if she claimed that the mother has a right to an abortioneven in cases of unprotected sex. This merely raisesthe question, however, of where does one draw the line? In fact, never even knew it was occurring. These arguments weaken her positionthat the right to have an abortion depends on the mother's right to controlher body and seem to lend strength to the opposing view that abortion iswrong because it violates the fetus's rights. Also, what about thecase where a woman does not take steps to prevent pregnancy and yet engagesin sexual intercourse. 25 ). Thomson argues that abortion would not be unjust in such a casebecause the woman took steps to prevent pregnancy. Thomson then dismisses theargument that the woman does not have the rifht to control her body becauseher body is "on loan" to her. Thomsoncounters, however, by arguing that saying that the mother cannot perform anabortion to save her own life is to grant the fetus's right to lifeprecedence over the mother's. She then supposes that abortion opponents' arrive atthe conclusion that abortion is morally wrong because the fetus's right tolife supercedes the mother's desire to decide what happens with her body(1971, p. 242). The violinist's kidneys are failing and, without the 'donor's'express consent, the Society of Music Lovers has plugged the violhnist'skidneys into the donor's kidneys. 25 ). Whose right to life takes precedence in such a case? Thomson's use of the dying violinist case suggests that she believesthat abortion opponents would oppose an abortion in the artificialinsemination case as well, even though the woman never consented to the actthat made her pregnant. But shealso notes that many abortion opponents oppose abortion even in cases ofrape. She uses the example of Smith and Jones andthe coat. Toward the end of her argument, when she discusses Minimally DecentSamaritans versus Good Samaritans, Thomson seems to slip into weighing theright to have an abortion based on the degree to which the pregnancyimposes upon the mother (1971, p. But her refutation of the anti-abortionists' argument that one should let "nature take its course" doesnot seemed based on any particular logic other than the mother has thepower to end the fetus's life to save her own, a power the fetus does nothave. Although she disagrees with that, she states that there may becases where the mother should be required to be a Minimally DecentSamaritan, as in the case of the traveling mother above. For the abortion opponents, how a woman becomes pregnant is notrelevant, or seemingly even related, to the fetus's right to life The question then arises between 'competing' rights to life. Thomson notesthat, for the anti-abortionists, the innocent fetus cannot be directlykilled because to do so would be murder. But if abortion is not wrong because there isno special relationship between the mother and the fetus, and the right tohave an abortion depends on the mother's right to control her body, thenwhy would abortion be wrong in the case of the traveling mother. On the other hand, if Thomsonhad not conceded that original position - that the fetus is a person fromconception - then her argument that the woman's right to control her bodycontrols her right to have an abortion in all cases would likely seemultimately more consistent. But is there a difference between becoming pregnantdue to a rape and becoming pregnant by artificial insemination while in acoma? 241). Thomsondiscusses the case where continuing a pregnancy threatens the mother'slife. This argumentseems more in line with abortion opponents' contention that abortions areimpermissible because they violate nature, while Thomson's argument ofSmith and Jones and the coat seems more of a legal argument - over propertyrights - that does not really seem to respond to the abortion opponents. But Thomson makes these arguments from theposition that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Reference: Thomson, J. Jones has found a coat to keep from freezing, but Smith, who ownsthe coat, also needs it to keep from freezing. These arguments by Thomson only seem to suggest that she agrees thatthere are cases where the fetus's right to life supercedes the mother'sright to control her body. To test this premise - that the right to life supercedesthe right to control one's body - Thomson offers the example of the dyingviolinist. Thus, she contends that her example does not fail due to the lack ofthe donor's consent. A defense of abortion. (1971). Thomson does finally address the idea of a 'special relationship'between the child and its mother, or parents, merely because of thebiological connection. Thus, she considers whether abortion could be an unjust killing incases where a woman engaged in consensual sex knowing that she could becomepregnant. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.