Thomson Arguments Against Abortion

The main problem with abortion has been about figuring out the rights that a fetus has and if the fetus is considered a person. Usually the most common argument against abortion is that the fetus is a human being and it is wrong to kill a human being. However, there are a few things to consider that allows abortion to be permissible. Before we get into the argument it is important to establish when a fetus is considered a person. These are the issues that Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense to Abortion” discusses to prove when abortion is allowed. I believe that a fetus is not a person, even though by the early stages of pregnancy the fetus acquires human characteristics like arms, legs, face, internal organs and brain activity. It is important
Now lets suppose that the fetus is a person and it has the right to life but we also know that the mother has a right to decide what happens to her body. But if you look at it this way it is obvious that a persons right to life is more important then a persons right to decide what happens to her body. In that case, abortion cannot take place because that would mean taking a person’s right to life. But what about the mothers right to decide what goes on in her body? Thompson explains that, what is someone was to get kidnapped and they woke up to see themselves plugged to a famous unconscious violinists. The violinist has a fatal kidney disorder and your blood is the only one that can cure him. And now your kidneys are working double to extract toxins from your body and the violinist body but you will be unplugged from the violinist in nine months. It would be nice of your to agree to help the violinist however you are not obligated to. On the other hand, if you chose to unplug yourself you are killing the violinist. But what if you were to be plugged to the violinist for your whole life? Also remember that the violinist has a right to life and unplugging him would be to take away his right to life. But you also have a right to decide what happens to your body and choosing to be plugged to the violinist for the rest of your life would mean that your right to life and the quality of
Having the right to life doesn’t mean that you are allowed to use another person’s body even if you need it to survive. Some people believe that having the right to life means that you have the right to have the bare minimum needs to continue living. Now if the bare minimum to continue life means that the violinist has to continue the use of the other person’s kidney doesn’t mean that he has a right to keep using the kidney. No one has the right to use your kidney unless you give them the permission to use your kidney. So, does the fetus have permission to use the mother’s body to survive? There are two parts to this question, first being as Thompson explains, if a woman is voluntarily having sexual intercourse knowing that there is a chance that she might become pregnant, then is she not partly responsible for the fetus inside of her? Of course, she didn’t invite it in but her partial responsibility does give the fetus the right to use the mother’s body. In that case abortion is not justified. Second is the case of pregnancy because of rape, in this situation the mother did not invite the fetus in. Therefore, the fetus doesn’t have a right to use the mother’s body even if that is the bare minimum requirement to stay