Abortion Is Murder ! By Judith Thomson
“Abortion is Murder!” I read that on a protester’s sign almost every day when I drive to school. The protesters are standing outside of a Planed Parenthood Clinic, where abortions are performed. Abortion is a hot-button issue in American politics and media. But are abortions permissible or impermissible? This question is a major topic for many philosophers. Some philosophers, including Don Marquis, view that abortion is mostly impermissible. They find abortion impermissible because it kills and innocent person and denies the fetus of a future of value. Other philosophers, like Judith Thomson, view that abortions are more permissible. They believe that mothers’ rights out-weigh the fetus’s right to life. I will present both sides of the abortion
…show more content…
In her paper “A Defense of Abortion” she argues that a mother’s rights can sometimes be more important than a fetus’s right to life. Thomson illustrates this argument with a thought experiment involving a famous violinist and a musician society. So a music society kidnaps you and you wake up hooked to a famous violinist. The violinist has a blood disorder, and the only way for him to survive is to keep him hooked up to your kidneys for nine years. You have no moral obligation to keep yourself hooked to the violinist because his right to life isn’t more important than your own life. Your autonomy is more important than the violinist’s right to life because you did not choose to be attached to him. In the case of abortion, a woman’s autonomy to choose to have a baby out-weighs the fetus’s right to life. Thomson emphasizes that when just actions are taken to avoid pregnancy, but pregnancy prevails an abortion is permissible. The abortion is permissible because the mother did not invite the fetus in, and just like your right to detach yourself from the violinist, the mother is right in getting an abortion. Thomson holds a consequentialist view; meaning that she believes the morality of an action depends only on its consequences (Sinnott-Armstrong). If an abortion would cause the greatest amount of happiness, then it would be permissible. If a mother knows that she doesn’t have the finances or lifestyle to …show more content…
This resembles my view on abortion; aborting one baby is okay if it generates the greatest amount of happiness. My stance in based on utilitarianism; an ethical idea that states what is permissible is what spreads the most welfare to the greatest number of people (Bakewell). The answer for an anti-abortion supporter would be to do nothing. They conclude that it would be impermissible to pull the spur because people have a duty to not kill; intervening would make them morally responsible for one death, and doing nothing would make them responsible for nothing. Believing that abortion is impermissible would mean one should always let the trolley run over the five people. Saving one person isn’t wrong, but I think it would be more right to save more people. If a single mother becomes pregnant, and she knows that she cannot support another child, it is permissible for her to get an abortion. It is permissible because performing the abortion would spread welfare to the mother and her first child and having another kid would only spread welfare to the second child.
In her paper “A Defense of Abortion” she argues that a mother’s rights can sometimes be more important than a fetus’s right to life. Thomson illustrates this argument with a thought experiment involving a famous violinist and a musician society. So a music society kidnaps you and you wake up hooked to a famous violinist. The violinist has a blood disorder, and the only way for him to survive is to keep him hooked up to your kidneys for nine years. You have no moral obligation to keep yourself hooked to the violinist because his right to life isn’t more important than your own life. Your autonomy is more important than the violinist’s right to life because you did not choose to be attached to him. In the case of abortion, a woman’s autonomy to choose to have a baby out-weighs the fetus’s right to life. Thomson emphasizes that when just actions are taken to avoid pregnancy, but pregnancy prevails an abortion is permissible. The abortion is permissible because the mother did not invite the fetus in, and just like your right to detach yourself from the violinist, the mother is right in getting an abortion. Thomson holds a consequentialist view; meaning that she believes the morality of an action depends only on its consequences (Sinnott-Armstrong). If an abortion would cause the greatest amount of happiness, then it would be permissible. If a mother knows that she doesn’t have the finances or lifestyle to …show more content…
This resembles my view on abortion; aborting one baby is okay if it generates the greatest amount of happiness. My stance in based on utilitarianism; an ethical idea that states what is permissible is what spreads the most welfare to the greatest number of people (Bakewell). The answer for an anti-abortion supporter would be to do nothing. They conclude that it would be impermissible to pull the spur because people have a duty to not kill; intervening would make them morally responsible for one death, and doing nothing would make them responsible for nothing. Believing that abortion is impermissible would mean one should always let the trolley run over the five people. Saving one person isn’t wrong, but I think it would be more right to save more people. If a single mother becomes pregnant, and she knows that she cannot support another child, it is permissible for her to get an abortion. It is permissible because performing the abortion would spread welfare to the mother and her first child and having another kid would only spread welfare to the second child.