10

With reference to her examples, does Thomson make a plausible casefor abortion?The moral argument surrounding abortion has been becoming more and more relevant to todays society, as we become more capable of detecting and terminating pregnancy.

The topic of abortion takes place within a larger discussion of womens rights, and theres been a recent push for the reproductive rights and right to bodily autonomy for women and other people with uteruses.

yay trans-inclusivityThomson, using various analogical aids, some fucken weird ones argues for a persons right to abortion, and therefore their right to bodily autonomy. From pregnancy due to rape, to accidental pregnancy, Thomson describes in clear cut is it clear tho terms the morality surrounding abortion. Thomsons main example that she uses is a person who has unknowingly and without their consent been connected to another person (in this case a violinist) that uses their kidneys to be kept alive. but literally how do they do some Frankenstein conjoined twins shit and sew their tubes together idgi Im stuck on this point In the same way that a pregnant womans body could be being used by the innocent foetus without her consent, the victim has been attached to an innocent person. The innocence of the violinist is vital to this example, as many who are against the use of abortion believe that the foetus, as an innocent person, does not deserve to be killed. The words person and killed are used loosely, as their use in terms of the pregnancy and abortion debate is arguably well yeah it is just incorrect tbh incorrect, and these clarifications are important when determining the morality of abortion, and potentially when deciding the legality of it too.

Arguably the biggest moral issue encountered when discussing abortion is the problem of peoples right to life. Perhaps the most widely agreed moral fact is that innocent people do not deserve to be killed. To people who are anti abortion, this means that the termination of a pregnancy is immoral due to the ending of the foetus life. = these people do not understand how science In these supposedly simple terms, it does seem that there is a moral case against the use of abortion; you make a cute devils advocate because ///if/// the foetus can be considered a person, then it would be unjust to kill it. However, as Thomson points out, the problem is not so simple: If directly killing an innocent person is murder, and thus is impermissible, then the mothers directly killing the innocent person inside her is murder and thus is impermissible. But it cannot seriously be thought to be murder if the mother performs an abortion on herself to save her life. It cannot be said that she must refrain, that she must sit passively waiting for her death.

The concept here is that between two persons, one must die for the other to survive. It is neither persons fault, merely an unfortunate fact. It would surely be permissible for one of the persons to act in self defence to save their own life, wait weve gone from babies to pistols at dawn plis what as each persons right to life is equal, meaning that every person has the right to protect their own life at the cost of anothers. Because of this, there seems to be a distinct difference between a good action and a just action. A good action would be the pregnant person saving the child regardless of her own life, as it shows a kind of respect for others far beyond that which is expected of an average person. A just action would be for the pregnant person to protect her own life at the denial of the foetuss life. This is all under the premise that a foetus can be considered a person from conception, which is not necessarily true but used for the sake of discussing the anti abortionist view.

Thomsons violinist can be used as an example to help visualise the concept of self defence in terms of abortion:There you are, in bed with the violinist, cheeeeeeky and the director of the hospital says to you, Its all most distressing, and I deeply sympathise, but you see this is putting an additional strain on your kidneys, and youll be dead within the month. But you have to stay where you are all the same. Because unplugging you would be directly killing an innocent violinist, and thats murder, and thats impermissible. theyd both?? die???? I uhoh

oh right

this bit makes more sense than the other bit but Im still imagining like (It seems that most people would reject this situation, and would indeed unplug themselves. It is not their moral duty to keep this violinist alive. also who had the fuCKING IDEA OF SWEING THEM TOGHETER IN THE FIRST PLACE JESUS CHRIST This seems to be a question of bodily autonomy. For example, if a person, The Queen perhaps, well I hope this doesnt happen tbh were to need a lung transplant and the only person whose lungs were suitable was you, but the surgery would save The Queen and kill you, you are at perfect liberty to say no. Not only that, but if it were a kidney transplant, and you were able to survive the surgery, as would The Queen, you are still at liberty, by law (and by extension many persons sense of morality well done for shoving morality back in here), to say no for your own reasons. The only people this does not apply to by law are pregnant people. Therefore, particularly in a case where the pregnant persons life is in danger, the pregnant person has no moral obligation to refrain from an abortion, as this action is not expected of any other person in a similar situation. In Thomsons words, if anything in this world is true, it is that you do not commit murder, you do not do what is impermissible, if you reach around to your back and unplug yourself from that violinist to save your life.

One of the more common anti abortion(ist) ?? arguments, according to Thomson, is if ones only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one must prefer letting the person die, and thus an abortion may not be performed. (This argument seems to assume that the active killing (if this word may be used in conjunction with that of abortion) of a person is worse than simply allowing someone to die.) can u condense this sentence its a wee bit lawng like my dick This type of argument states that no person has the right to take away a persons right to life and preservation of other life is secondary. and this one put them in the same sentence its kinda the same thing idk its muchas wordy are u Charles dickens However, it could be argued that a right to life and a right to preservation of life are equal and, actually, very similar. Thomsons example used to illustrate this problem is as follows:Suppose you find yourself trapped in a tiny house with a growing child. I mean a very tiny house, and a rapidly growing child you are already up against the wall of the house and in a few minutes you'll be crushed to death. The child on the other hand wont be crushed to death; if nothing is done to stop him from growing hell be hurt, but in the end hell simply burst open the house and walk out a free man. Now I could well understand it if a bystander were to say, Theres nothing we can do for you. We cannot choose between your life and his, we cannot be the ones to decide who is to live, we cannot intervene.

Many people are represented here by the bystander (particularly people who are unable to get pregnant), and it does seem that the decision is not theirs to make. nd it isnt?? their decision??? they are bystander and can shove opinion up dickhole I am being unprofessional sorry However, (many people put in that particular situation of imminent death by rapidly growing child) weve all been there would employ at least some kind of self defence. this is some alice in wonderland shit

Not only this, but the pregnant persons body, represented by the house, actually belongs to the person whos life is in danger, as if the house is not just, as Thomson says, by an unfortunate mistake, been rented to both [the adult and child]' but actually has been invaded in some way by the child. This only furthers the legitimacy of the pregnant persons self defence hmmmm u keep saying self defence idk why that phrase isnt quite sitting comfortably let me think and come back to it bc u say earlier that the foetus is considered innocent so like its a passive invasion idk its cells doing what theyre meant to do which is divide n grow but its like a tumour its not inherently malevolent its just the effects it has, like a tumour on its own isnt evil its just the effect it has on someones life idk Im silly via the process of abortion. Because of all this, the original statement if ones only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one must prefer letting the person die, and thus an abortion may not be performed is shown to be wrong as the options are not available to a bystander, but in fact are available uniquely to the pregnant person, the owner of their body. (y) (y) yay the point of the essay I cant believe you have to write a fucking essay about this its literally common sense or it should be common sense god I hate people

One other example that Thomson uses to illustrate her defence of abortion is the example of the good samaritan, the well known bible allegory oh I love the bible YOU SHOULDNT BE GAY ALSO DONT HAVE INDOOR TOILETS great advice there jesus thank u for that. We have in fact to Thomson says, ( this phrasing seems strange distinguish between two kinds of samaritan: the Good Samaritan and the Minimally Decent Samaritan. haha I like that This distinction affords the argument a way of separating what action is unjust and morally indecent. In this example, Thomson supposes that pregnancy is a mildly inconvenient hour, rather than a potentially life threatening or at least debilitating 9 months. Im assuming theres more to this quote bc that doesnt come across from that extract? This, she suggests, shows that the Good Samaritan action would be allowing, in this example, the violinist to use your kidneys for an hour, Im imagining a kidney rental system whereas the Minimally Decent Samaritan would not take this action, and would be completely just in doing so, as it is not their moral duty to continue to keep the violinist alive. Thomson compares this to a case of pregnancy by rape. Because the pregnant person did not voluntarily do anything to bring about the existence of a child, they are therefore not actually morally obligated to continue allowing the foetus to use their body. There is, says Thomson, a difference between what one ought to do and what is unjust for one to do.

It seems that there are many cases where abortion could be a just and moral decision. Particular cases such as those of the pregnant persons life being at risk, or pregnancy as a result of rape can and do happen and it is with these in mind that we should form our perspectives on the necessity, morality and legality of abortion. ( nice, concise, I dig that sentence, keep it real However, it could be argued that since Thomson believes that some cases of abortion are morally indecent, such as a person in her seventh month, and wants the abortion just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad, ( when has that ever happened like ??????why should everyones right to bodily autonomy be based on examples like????????? ??????????????????????????????????she does not fully explore the reasons one might have for abortion, or even the morality of forcing a person to keep their baby. Ultimately, if one does not want the baby, the baby will have to grow up unwanted, and this is potentially damaging to the childs life. idk maybe get some psych facts n figures in here if u can idk what youd google my child was an accident help my sperm made this and did an awful job how do I back out now Not only this, but potentially mentally damaging to the birth parent as well. Also, forcing people to allow their bodies to change in a way they don't want seems arguably to be one of the most immoral actions. If we are to have any rights in this world, surely they be the rights ( arr they be the rights

to the control of our own bodies? Thomsons arguments in defines how grammur of abortion are valid and convincing, however they are arbitrary, as we cannot consider the morality of abortion only in the cases of death and rape, as this does not provide us with a clear, fully picture much picture very full of the debate.

Bibliography J. J. Thomson (1971) A defence of abortion, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1), 47-66

thats fascinating jeff

J. J. Thomson (1971) A defence of abortion, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1), 47-66, p. 51-52.

Thomson, A Defense of Abortion, p. 52.

Thomson, A Defense of Abortion, p. 52.

Thomson, A Defense of Abortion, p. 51.

Thomson, A Defence of Abortion, p. 52.

Thomson, A Defence of Abortion, p. 52.

Thomson, A Defence of Abortion, p. 62.

Thomson, A Defense of Abortion, p. 66.