Summary: A Defense Of Abortion By Judith Thomson
Matthew Tan
TA: Ben Sheredos
Section: A06
Prof. G. Doppelt
PART A The debate on abortion is primarily made up of two sides: prolife and prochoice. The prolife side’s main argument is that the fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life. Judith Thomson addresses this argument in her paper, “A Defense of Abortion,” by giving a hypothetical sick violinist example. In this example, kidnappers abduct a healthy stranger and, after rendering him unconscious, performs a surgery to “connect” the healthy stranger to the famous ailing violinist (1. Thomson, CC 153). This violinist has a fatal kidney condition and, if detached from the healthy stranger, the violinist will die. Once the stranger awakens from surgery, he is told …show more content…
that the sick violinist will need to stay attached to him for nine months in order for the violinist to fully recover and if he chooses to unplug, which he has every right to do since this procedure was done to him against his will, the violinist will die. Thomson presents this example as an analogical form of argument by relating it to a similar situation, that of an unwanted or accidental pregnancy. The violinist is representative of the fetus and the stranger is representative of the mother. Although the violinist is a person and has a right to life, does that make the stranger obligated to providing that life? This poses the same question in the analogical case, is the mother obligated to provide the fetus, which has a right to life, with nine months of her life? The phrase “right to life” is important in this abortion debate and can be construed as not being obstructed to basic life necessities (food, water, shelter), but it does not mean that you must be provided with said necessities by somebody else. Thomson argues that a fetus’ right to life does not impose a responsibility on the mother to provide that life, just as the stranger has no responsibility to stay connected to the violinist for nine months (2. Thompson, CC 158). Therefore, an abortion is not necessarily a violation of the fetus’ right to life.
If this is simply the case, then the debate on abortion seems to be trivial.
However, another aspect that complicates the debate is that an abortion can be interpreted as the killing of a fetus, or person. Thomson claims that a killing is unjust if it violates the right to life, and in the case of abortion, the right to life is not violated (3. Thomson, CC 157). Referring back to the example, if the stranger were to disconnect himself, he would essentially be killing the violinist. But would this be considered an unjustified killing, or even murder? Since the stranger was never morally responsible to provide the violinist with his body, would it then be fair to say that the stranger murdered the violinist? The answer to this must be no. Although it would have been altruistic if the stranger chose to remain connected to the violinist, it is not the stranger’s obligation to do so. Refusing to have your life imposed on should not be understood as murder. The same applies to a mother and a fetus. In this day in age, where women have become prominent figures in society, it is unfair to force women to put their life on hold for a baby that they do not want. Although an abortion ends with death of a fetus, it is not an unjustified …show more content…
killing.
The conclusions that Thomson comes to, abortion is neither a violation of the right to life nor an unjustified killing, challenges the position of John Noonan. Noonan employs the idea of humanity and Good Samaritan law in his argument. He argues that humanity requires a person to understand and appreciate the difficulties another person is experiencing and help them if they are in need (4. Glover, CC 190). Applying this to the abortion debate, humanity requires the mother not to expose the fetus to an environment where the fetus becomes nonviable, even if the mother is not morally obligated to care for it. I believe that Thomson would stick to her libertarian view of rights where mothers are able to pursue happiness free from interference from other persons. Thomson would reply that having a baby is no simple task, it significantly restricts what the mother can do and it takes nine months of the mother’s time, even more if the mother chooses not to give up the baby for adoption. Part B John Noonan is a prolife advocate and believes that the idea of perception is a main component in the abortion debate. Noonan claims that perception impacts our actions and decisions – we react differently to things that are perceived differently. For example, we would react differently if we were to bump into an object, say a chair, compared to a person. A lack of perception is dangerous, as shown in history when skin color played a large role in determining who was considered a person and who wasn’t, resulting in racial discrimination. Noonan claims that we must begin perceiving the fetus as a person and that personhood trumps the freedom of the woman to take away the life of the fetus (5. Noonan, CC 196). According to Noonan, once we are able to see the fetus as a person, we would be able to see that the freedom of the mother does not outweigh the life of the fetus and that abortion is immoral. Thomson, for argument’s sake, acknowledges the fetus as a person and shows in her violinist example that abortion is still not immoral because the mother is not obligated to provide for the fetus. An objection Noonan will have against this argument is the comparison of the violinist to a fetus, in that both should not be perceived the same way. Perception wise, a fetus shouldn’t be equated to a sick violinist because that may be interpreted to mean that there is something fundamentally wrong with the fetus, diminishing its value when compared to the freedom of the mother. Noonan takes the prolife side to somewhat of an extreme when he makes an argument for not allowing abortions even in the case of rape.
The rape situation is usually seen as a permissible reason for an abortion, even occasionally on the prolife side. However, Noonan argues that this exception should not be granted because it leaves open the door to other exceptions, such as a failure in contraception or an unwanted pregnancy (6. Noonan, CC 191). He believes if the woman is able to recover from the trauma, adoption in this sickening case is a more humane solution than abortion. Noonan contends emotional distress, in any case, for a mother is not an adequate reason to kill a fetus. The fetus did not choose to come be born, nor does it wish any harm or distress it may cause. Typically in these cases (unwanted or accidental pregnancies), the parents’ feelings are prioritized over the life of the fetus because they are unwilling to face the extra burdens that come with having a
child. Another central moral argument Noonan employs is the notion of humanity. Humanity is typically thought of what makes us human and in Noonan’s eyes, humanity requires us not to let other people die. Although Noonan claims that the fetus is a person separate from the mother, the fetus is still primarily dependent on the mother for life. Therefore, humanity, as Noonan defines it, requires the mother to not purposefully harm the fetus in any way (8. Noonan, CC 190). Conversely, Thomson argues that the fetus’ right to life does not mean that the mother is morally obligated to provide for the fetus. I believe Noonan would accept this claim but will argue that the mother should still care for the child because it is what humanity requires, even if it isn’t her obligation to do so. Noonan believes that a person should not be purposefully left in a situation where death is certain. Thomson could then ask Noonan: to what extent is one expected to go to ensure that the person survives? In the case of a pregnancy, a mother is extremely restricted in her abilities for nine months and must deliver the baby, a painful experience in itself. Part C The debate on abortion has many moving parts and can be argued in favor for or against differently. As mentioned above, Judith Thomson uses a mother’s obligations to argue her prochoice side and John Noonan uses the idea of perception to argue his prolife side. Jonathan Glover takes a different approach by utilizing self-consciousness to determine what makes up a person. Glover defines self-consciousness as being aware that you are a distinct being with continuity in time and space (9. Glover, CC 57). This would mean that you understand you will always be the same person, despite age or location, and that you are different from everybody else. Self-consciousness can be seen as a valid way to define personhood and indicates abortion is not the killing of a person because the fetus was never a person. The main objection to this claim is that self-consciousness is clearly not evident in newborn babies, so is infanticide is morally permissible also? Glover addresses this objection by disregarding the rights of the newborn and focusing on the effect infanticide will have on society. He argues that once a baby is born, our human emotions are automatically extended to it (10. Glover, CC 57). We feel a sense of compassion, protection, concern, and love for the baby immediately after birth. Through Glover’s point of view, although a newborn is not a person, to kill it would mean to forfeit all of our intrinsic values and emotions. If we ever view newborns as disposable, Glover claims that the world would be undoubtedly worse off. Noonan argues not only that a fetus is a person, but also a person who’s right to life trumps the freedom of the mother. This contradicts Glover’s argument because Glover believes that the fetus, and also newborn, is not a person and that personhood can only be granted to those with a degree of self-consciousness. I believe Glover would criticize Noonan’s perception argument by saying that you can’t define a fetus as a person by simply looking. Noonan claims that we must make the fetus more visible and perceive it as a person but he doesn’t offer any reasoning for what makes it a person (11. Noonan, CC 196). If the fetus is perceived to be a person, Glover may then ask if that makes an embryo, maybe even sperm, a person also? And in that case, using a condom puts the sperm in a nonviable environment so would that be considered morally wrong? Glover makes this distinction in his argument, citing the fetus as not a person but having the potential to become one, similar to sperm. A fetus does not have the same fundamental properties, such as self-consciousness, we would see in a typical person, but there is a possibility that the fetus will develop these properties. Thomson acknowledges the fetus as a person for arguments sake but still concludes that abortion is not immoral. She justifies the killing of the fetus by claiming that the mother has no obligation to keep the fetus alive, even though it is a person and has a right to life. I believe Glover will take exception to this because the killing of a person is a significant moral issue. Both Thomson and Glover agree that it is morally permissible to have an abortion but Glover never considered the fetus to be a person, so he wouldn’t considered it a killing. It also seems as if Thomson’s argument can also be used to justify infanticide, something that she fails to address in her argument. If the mother does not have a moral obligation to provide for the fetus, what happens if that fetus is carried to term and a baby is born? Glover may ask does the mother still not have an obligation to provide for the baby? If we were to base the answer purely on Thomson’s argument, the answer would be no the mother is still not obligated to provide for the baby because the baby can be viewed as a fetus that is outside the body since the fetus is already seen as a person. Thomson most likely does not support infanticide but her argument does not rule it out.
TA: Ben Sheredos
Section: A06
Prof. G. Doppelt
PART A The debate on abortion is primarily made up of two sides: prolife and prochoice. The prolife side’s main argument is that the fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life. Judith Thomson addresses this argument in her paper, “A Defense of Abortion,” by giving a hypothetical sick violinist example. In this example, kidnappers abduct a healthy stranger and, after rendering him unconscious, performs a surgery to “connect” the healthy stranger to the famous ailing violinist (1. Thomson, CC 153). This violinist has a fatal kidney condition and, if detached from the healthy stranger, the violinist will die. Once the stranger awakens from surgery, he is told …show more content…
that the sick violinist will need to stay attached to him for nine months in order for the violinist to fully recover and if he chooses to unplug, which he has every right to do since this procedure was done to him against his will, the violinist will die. Thomson presents this example as an analogical form of argument by relating it to a similar situation, that of an unwanted or accidental pregnancy. The violinist is representative of the fetus and the stranger is representative of the mother. Although the violinist is a person and has a right to life, does that make the stranger obligated to providing that life? This poses the same question in the analogical case, is the mother obligated to provide the fetus, which has a right to life, with nine months of her life? The phrase “right to life” is important in this abortion debate and can be construed as not being obstructed to basic life necessities (food, water, shelter), but it does not mean that you must be provided with said necessities by somebody else. Thomson argues that a fetus’ right to life does not impose a responsibility on the mother to provide that life, just as the stranger has no responsibility to stay connected to the violinist for nine months (2. Thompson, CC 158). Therefore, an abortion is not necessarily a violation of the fetus’ right to life.
If this is simply the case, then the debate on abortion seems to be trivial.
However, another aspect that complicates the debate is that an abortion can be interpreted as the killing of a fetus, or person. Thomson claims that a killing is unjust if it violates the right to life, and in the case of abortion, the right to life is not violated (3. Thomson, CC 157). Referring back to the example, if the stranger were to disconnect himself, he would essentially be killing the violinist. But would this be considered an unjustified killing, or even murder? Since the stranger was never morally responsible to provide the violinist with his body, would it then be fair to say that the stranger murdered the violinist? The answer to this must be no. Although it would have been altruistic if the stranger chose to remain connected to the violinist, it is not the stranger’s obligation to do so. Refusing to have your life imposed on should not be understood as murder. The same applies to a mother and a fetus. In this day in age, where women have become prominent figures in society, it is unfair to force women to put their life on hold for a baby that they do not want. Although an abortion ends with death of a fetus, it is not an unjustified …show more content…
killing.
The conclusions that Thomson comes to, abortion is neither a violation of the right to life nor an unjustified killing, challenges the position of John Noonan. Noonan employs the idea of humanity and Good Samaritan law in his argument. He argues that humanity requires a person to understand and appreciate the difficulties another person is experiencing and help them if they are in need (4. Glover, CC 190). Applying this to the abortion debate, humanity requires the mother not to expose the fetus to an environment where the fetus becomes nonviable, even if the mother is not morally obligated to care for it. I believe that Thomson would stick to her libertarian view of rights where mothers are able to pursue happiness free from interference from other persons. Thomson would reply that having a baby is no simple task, it significantly restricts what the mother can do and it takes nine months of the mother’s time, even more if the mother chooses not to give up the baby for adoption. Part B John Noonan is a prolife advocate and believes that the idea of perception is a main component in the abortion debate. Noonan claims that perception impacts our actions and decisions – we react differently to things that are perceived differently. For example, we would react differently if we were to bump into an object, say a chair, compared to a person. A lack of perception is dangerous, as shown in history when skin color played a large role in determining who was considered a person and who wasn’t, resulting in racial discrimination. Noonan claims that we must begin perceiving the fetus as a person and that personhood trumps the freedom of the woman to take away the life of the fetus (5. Noonan, CC 196). According to Noonan, once we are able to see the fetus as a person, we would be able to see that the freedom of the mother does not outweigh the life of the fetus and that abortion is immoral. Thomson, for argument’s sake, acknowledges the fetus as a person and shows in her violinist example that abortion is still not immoral because the mother is not obligated to provide for the fetus. An objection Noonan will have against this argument is the comparison of the violinist to a fetus, in that both should not be perceived the same way. Perception wise, a fetus shouldn’t be equated to a sick violinist because that may be interpreted to mean that there is something fundamentally wrong with the fetus, diminishing its value when compared to the freedom of the mother. Noonan takes the prolife side to somewhat of an extreme when he makes an argument for not allowing abortions even in the case of rape.
The rape situation is usually seen as a permissible reason for an abortion, even occasionally on the prolife side. However, Noonan argues that this exception should not be granted because it leaves open the door to other exceptions, such as a failure in contraception or an unwanted pregnancy (6. Noonan, CC 191). He believes if the woman is able to recover from the trauma, adoption in this sickening case is a more humane solution than abortion. Noonan contends emotional distress, in any case, for a mother is not an adequate reason to kill a fetus. The fetus did not choose to come be born, nor does it wish any harm or distress it may cause. Typically in these cases (unwanted or accidental pregnancies), the parents’ feelings are prioritized over the life of the fetus because they are unwilling to face the extra burdens that come with having a
child. Another central moral argument Noonan employs is the notion of humanity. Humanity is typically thought of what makes us human and in Noonan’s eyes, humanity requires us not to let other people die. Although Noonan claims that the fetus is a person separate from the mother, the fetus is still primarily dependent on the mother for life. Therefore, humanity, as Noonan defines it, requires the mother to not purposefully harm the fetus in any way (8. Noonan, CC 190). Conversely, Thomson argues that the fetus’ right to life does not mean that the mother is morally obligated to provide for the fetus. I believe Noonan would accept this claim but will argue that the mother should still care for the child because it is what humanity requires, even if it isn’t her obligation to do so. Noonan believes that a person should not be purposefully left in a situation where death is certain. Thomson could then ask Noonan: to what extent is one expected to go to ensure that the person survives? In the case of a pregnancy, a mother is extremely restricted in her abilities for nine months and must deliver the baby, a painful experience in itself. Part C The debate on abortion has many moving parts and can be argued in favor for or against differently. As mentioned above, Judith Thomson uses a mother’s obligations to argue her prochoice side and John Noonan uses the idea of perception to argue his prolife side. Jonathan Glover takes a different approach by utilizing self-consciousness to determine what makes up a person. Glover defines self-consciousness as being aware that you are a distinct being with continuity in time and space (9. Glover, CC 57). This would mean that you understand you will always be the same person, despite age or location, and that you are different from everybody else. Self-consciousness can be seen as a valid way to define personhood and indicates abortion is not the killing of a person because the fetus was never a person. The main objection to this claim is that self-consciousness is clearly not evident in newborn babies, so is infanticide is morally permissible also? Glover addresses this objection by disregarding the rights of the newborn and focusing on the effect infanticide will have on society. He argues that once a baby is born, our human emotions are automatically extended to it (10. Glover, CC 57). We feel a sense of compassion, protection, concern, and love for the baby immediately after birth. Through Glover’s point of view, although a newborn is not a person, to kill it would mean to forfeit all of our intrinsic values and emotions. If we ever view newborns as disposable, Glover claims that the world would be undoubtedly worse off. Noonan argues not only that a fetus is a person, but also a person who’s right to life trumps the freedom of the mother. This contradicts Glover’s argument because Glover believes that the fetus, and also newborn, is not a person and that personhood can only be granted to those with a degree of self-consciousness. I believe Glover would criticize Noonan’s perception argument by saying that you can’t define a fetus as a person by simply looking. Noonan claims that we must make the fetus more visible and perceive it as a person but he doesn’t offer any reasoning for what makes it a person (11. Noonan, CC 196). If the fetus is perceived to be a person, Glover may then ask if that makes an embryo, maybe even sperm, a person also? And in that case, using a condom puts the sperm in a nonviable environment so would that be considered morally wrong? Glover makes this distinction in his argument, citing the fetus as not a person but having the potential to become one, similar to sperm. A fetus does not have the same fundamental properties, such as self-consciousness, we would see in a typical person, but there is a possibility that the fetus will develop these properties. Thomson acknowledges the fetus as a person for arguments sake but still concludes that abortion is not immoral. She justifies the killing of the fetus by claiming that the mother has no obligation to keep the fetus alive, even though it is a person and has a right to life. I believe Glover will take exception to this because the killing of a person is a significant moral issue. Both Thomson and Glover agree that it is morally permissible to have an abortion but Glover never considered the fetus to be a person, so he wouldn’t considered it a killing. It also seems as if Thomson’s argument can also be used to justify infanticide, something that she fails to address in her argument. If the mother does not have a moral obligation to provide for the fetus, what happens if that fetus is carried to term and a baby is born? Glover may ask does the mother still not have an obligation to provide for the baby? If we were to base the answer purely on Thomson’s argument, the answer would be no the mother is still not obligated to provide for the baby because the baby can be viewed as a fetus that is outside the body since the fetus is already seen as a person. Thomson most likely does not support infanticide but her argument does not rule it out.