Response To Thomson's Argument Of Abortion
Who Deserves to Live In this paper, I will argue that Thomson successfully defends the view that abortion is permissible even in the case that the parents had protected sex. I will accomplish this through three simple steps. First, I will give some background information necessary to understand the debate and then I will present Thomson’s argument. Secondly, I will explain each premises of the argument with the help of some cases and scenarios. Finally, I will present an original objection to the argument that abortion is permissible even when the parents had protected sex. In this paragraph I will provide a little background information regarding Thomson’s argument. According to Thomson, “the right to life consists not in the right not to
…show more content…
Premise 1 states that even though the woman had protected sex knowing of the possible consequences, she did not agree to take the responsibility of having a child. If a person puts up a fine mesh screen on their window to prevent people-seeds from coming in, they should not be responsible for any defects. If a people-seed does end up in the house, that does not mean the woman took up the responsibility to grow and nurture it in her house (pg. 115). The woman had protected sex, but she did not agree to provide for a fetus for nine months because of a defect in the contraceptive. Premise 2 states that if the mother never agreed to anything, the fetus does not have a right to interfere in the mother’s life. Thomson gives the example of the violinist case, explained above, and the Henry Fonda case. She explains that if she was sick and the only thing that could save her from death is Henry Fonda’s touch, she would like him to travel all the way to help her, but he is not obligated to. Henry Fonda has a right to his hand and has not taken responsibility or given Thomson a word that he shall give her a touch (pg. 112). Just like that, the woman never gave the fetus the right to use her womb. Since the fetus has no right to live in the womb, according to premise 3, the mother has all rights to get an abortion. Suppose that two people, Jones and Smith, are freezing in the cold and there is only one coat meant for one person. Both people would have equal rights to the coat but if the coat is owned by Smith, then he has the right to choose what happens to it. If Smith decides not to give the coat to Jones, and Jones dies, he did not die unjustly (pg. 111). Smith never gave Jones the right to use the coat just like the mother never gave the child the right to use the womb. The mother owns the womb and has the ultimate decision on whether the fetus can use it. The conclusion states that the
Premise 1 states that even though the woman had protected sex knowing of the possible consequences, she did not agree to take the responsibility of having a child. If a person puts up a fine mesh screen on their window to prevent people-seeds from coming in, they should not be responsible for any defects. If a people-seed does end up in the house, that does not mean the woman took up the responsibility to grow and nurture it in her house (pg. 115). The woman had protected sex, but she did not agree to provide for a fetus for nine months because of a defect in the contraceptive. Premise 2 states that if the mother never agreed to anything, the fetus does not have a right to interfere in the mother’s life. Thomson gives the example of the violinist case, explained above, and the Henry Fonda case. She explains that if she was sick and the only thing that could save her from death is Henry Fonda’s touch, she would like him to travel all the way to help her, but he is not obligated to. Henry Fonda has a right to his hand and has not taken responsibility or given Thomson a word that he shall give her a touch (pg. 112). Just like that, the woman never gave the fetus the right to use her womb. Since the fetus has no right to live in the womb, according to premise 3, the mother has all rights to get an abortion. Suppose that two people, Jones and Smith, are freezing in the cold and there is only one coat meant for one person. Both people would have equal rights to the coat but if the coat is owned by Smith, then he has the right to choose what happens to it. If Smith decides not to give the coat to Jones, and Jones dies, he did not die unjustly (pg. 111). Smith never gave Jones the right to use the coat just like the mother never gave the child the right to use the womb. The mother owns the womb and has the ultimate decision on whether the fetus can use it. The conclusion states that the