Thomson Argument For The General Moral Permissibility
Justin Murray-Frank
PHIL 2455
Professor Markovitz
3/31/2017
Paper II
In this paper I will describe Thomson’s argument for the general moral permissibility of aborting a fetus that attributed personhood. I make the deliberate distinction of ‘general moral permissibility’ because Thomson herself says there are exceptional cases where her argument may not hold, and I too will detail said cases in this paper. I will also illustrate four examples Thomson provides as support for her argument--the violinist, Henry Fonda, people seeds, and the expanding baby--and explain why I believe they are convincing supports for her argument. Thomson’s argument is that abortion of a fetus that is not viable (viable meaning that it is at a stage of development …show more content…
In one example Thomson wants you to imagine that there is a woman named Judy who is terminally ill, and the only thing that can cure her is “the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on her fevered brow”(Thomson, 55). Although it would be stellar for Fonda to travel to Judy’s aid in order to cure her, he is not required to do so, because Judy’s right to life is not a claim right. This example is convincing because it helps illustrate how the pregnant mother can decide that she no longer wishes to support the life of an unviable fetus, since the fetus holds no claim right to life, which would require her to do so. Another example Thomson uses incorporates the issue of rape in the abortion dilemma. In the example, Thomson wants you to imagine that a famous violinist is suffering from a life threatening kidney ailment, and in order for him to be cured you have been unwillingly plugged into him in order to detoxify his kidneys. In order for him to totally recuperate you must remain attached to him for nine months (Thomson, 48 - 50). According to Thomson, although it would be quite gracious of you to accommodate the violinist, you are by no means required to remain plugged to him, because he has no claim right to his life and because you have not consensually volunteered to sustain his life. This example is convincing because it is applicable to cases in which a woman is raped and the moral permissibility of her aborting the resulting fetus is put into question. Similar to the case of the violinist, if a woman was raped, she has no obligation to keep the fetus alive, since she did not volunteer to create or support the fetus; thus, if she decides not to abort the fetus it is gracious but certainly not
PHIL 2455
Professor Markovitz
3/31/2017
Paper II
In this paper I will describe Thomson’s argument for the general moral permissibility of aborting a fetus that attributed personhood. I make the deliberate distinction of ‘general moral permissibility’ because Thomson herself says there are exceptional cases where her argument may not hold, and I too will detail said cases in this paper. I will also illustrate four examples Thomson provides as support for her argument--the violinist, Henry Fonda, people seeds, and the expanding baby--and explain why I believe they are convincing supports for her argument. Thomson’s argument is that abortion of a fetus that is not viable (viable meaning that it is at a stage of development …show more content…
In one example Thomson wants you to imagine that there is a woman named Judy who is terminally ill, and the only thing that can cure her is “the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on her fevered brow”(Thomson, 55). Although it would be stellar for Fonda to travel to Judy’s aid in order to cure her, he is not required to do so, because Judy’s right to life is not a claim right. This example is convincing because it helps illustrate how the pregnant mother can decide that she no longer wishes to support the life of an unviable fetus, since the fetus holds no claim right to life, which would require her to do so. Another example Thomson uses incorporates the issue of rape in the abortion dilemma. In the example, Thomson wants you to imagine that a famous violinist is suffering from a life threatening kidney ailment, and in order for him to be cured you have been unwillingly plugged into him in order to detoxify his kidneys. In order for him to totally recuperate you must remain attached to him for nine months (Thomson, 48 - 50). According to Thomson, although it would be quite gracious of you to accommodate the violinist, you are by no means required to remain plugged to him, because he has no claim right to his life and because you have not consensually volunteered to sustain his life. This example is convincing because it is applicable to cases in which a woman is raped and the moral permissibility of her aborting the resulting fetus is put into question. Similar to the case of the violinist, if a woman was raped, she has no obligation to keep the fetus alive, since she did not volunteer to create or support the fetus; thus, if she decides not to abort the fetus it is gracious but certainly not