JJ Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opposition to abortion rests on the premise that the fetus is a person.
This premise not typically well argued for. It employs a slippery slope argument known to be fallacious. Specifically,
1) Development of zygote into fetus into newborn is continuous process.
2) Any diving point one chooses would be arbitrary.
3) So we had better suppose that fetus is a person from moment of conception.
This form of reasoning would also require us to call an acorn an oak tree.
Prospects for drawing a line marking personhoods start look dim.
Thomson grants that we ought to regard fetuses at persons in later stages of development.
But rejects the view that fetus is person from conception.
But Thomson is not concerned about where to draw the line here. In fact, she is willing to assume for the sake of argument what she believes to be false, that fetuses are persons from the moment of conception.
Granting that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, how does the argument against abortion proceed?
1) Every person has a right to life.
2) So the fetus has a right to life.
3) The mother also has a right to decide what will happen in her body.
4) But surely the right to life of the fetus is 'stronger' and outweighs the mother's right to decide what happens in her body.
5) So it is wrong to kill the fetus by performing an abortion.
Famous violinist case is offered as a counterexample to above argument.
Kidnapping is analogous to rape. Can right to lifer make an exception for rape? Hard to accept that fetus' right to life depends on how it was conceived.
1. The extreme view: abortion always wrong even to save the mother's life.
Extreme view requires more than above argument. Mother also has a right to life. Supporting the extreme view requires
Granting above argument, mothers right to life, when it is at stake, and her right to what happens in her body might outweigh fetuses right to life, thereby justifying abortion.
Extreme requires following argument or variation on it.
1) Performing abortion is a direct killing of the child.
2) Doing nothing would not be killing the mother, but only letting her die.
3) Killing the fetus would be killing an innocent child.
4) Killing an innocent child is always wrong.
5) Abortion is wrong, even to save mothers life.
Alternative arguments use different (4) and (5).
Premises employed in these various arguments would entail that the mother performing the abortion on her would also be murder and hence wrong. But it is hard to maintain that mother must sit and wait for her own death.
Violinist case again.
Arguments focus instead on what a third party may do.
But we would be mistaken in inferring what mother herself can do from what third parties can or cannot do.
Child in tiny house growing rapidly.
RU486 issue - now woman can perform her own abortion.
Qualifier: right to self defense not unlimited according to Thomson. Torture another to death or die case - no right to torture here.
Child in tiny house case shows extreme view false.
2: how about weakening the extreme view. Allow for abortion to save the mother's life, but only if performed by the mother herself.
But, when mother’s life is threatened, saying we cannot choose between you and the child is not impartial.
This is not a case of 2 tenants in a too small house. The mother owns the house. Compare case of Jones who puts on Smiths coat to keep from freezing. Smith also needs it to avoid freezing. Impartiality does not require that we refuse to help Smith get his coat back. It is Smith's coat.
Likewise, it’s the mother's body. p, 390L
3: Where the mother's life is not at stake . . .
Right to lifer holds that "Child has right to life and this is weightier than anything but mother's own right to life"
What is this right to life? This question is not easy.
Rights as limits on the freedom of others. Some confusion about 'conflicting rights'.
What specific limits does Childs right to life place on liberty of Mother or others?
A) Right to life includes right to be given what one needs to survive.
But consider case where I am sick unto death and the only thing that ca save me is Henry Fonda's cool touch on m forehead. It would be nice if Henry flew in to help me. But he is under no obligation to do so. And return to violinist case
So Right to Life does not include right to be given what one needs to survive.
B) Right to life as right not to be killed.
But violinist does not have a right against you that requires you to refrain from unplugging yourself.
Thomson is not arguing against a right to life. She is rather rejecting a couple of accounts of what that right amounts to.
1) If there is a right to life, everyone has it.
2) To deny a person what they have a right to is to treat them unjustly.
3) Suppose right to life is a right to not be killed.
4) Then violinist lacks a right to life because it would not be unjust to kill him (that is, to deny him not being killed)
5) Therefore, right to life is not a right not to be killed.
4: So let's try out the view that right to life consists in right not to be killed unjustly.
Risk of circularity. But lets us handle violinist case. You do kill violinist but you do not violate his right to life because you do not kill him unjustly.
This proposal handles the problem with (3). But now it is not enough to hold that fetus is a person and persons have a right to life. Violinist case shows us that some killings are not unjust.
Pro-lifer must also argue that killing the fetus violates its right to life. That is, now pro-lifer must now argue that abortion is unjust killing.
Perhaps it would be unjust to kill the fetus by having an abortion of the fetus has a right to use the mother's body. But on what grounds could this be argued. The mother has not given such a right to the fetus. How could a mother give such a right to a fetus in any case? The fetus does not exist until it is using the mother's body. So fetus cannot be given the right to use mother's body.
Perhaps fetus can acquire the right of use in another way. . p. 392 we might argue that the mother has special responsibility towards the fetus because of the role she plays in bringing it into existence.
"Doesn't her partial responsibility for its being there itself give it a right to the use of her body?" p. 392 L (at least where she voluntarily chooses to indulge in intercourse in spite of risk of pregnancy. This line has little force against abortion in the case of rape.)
How far does this argument go?
Consider case of stuffy room, open window, burglar enters. We would not want to say that the burglar now has a right to stay.
People seeds case. Woman has decided she doesn't want children. Her apartment is fertile ground for people seeds. So she fits windows out with fine screens to keep seeds out. But precautions can fail. If seed takes root anyway should we recognize it as having a right to use of the woman’s apartment? Thomson says no. p. 392 R.
Thomson allows that this line of argument might show that some cases of abortion are unjust killings. But not all. Leaves it there.
5: Morally indecent to detach violinist if your body is only needed for 1 hour and no further harmful effects. You did not give him permission to your bodies use, but you ought to give him use of it anyway. Does this in any sense give him a right to use of your body?
Ought/right not the same thing (despite common usage)
Box of chocolates given to boy who chooses not to share with his little sister. Perhaps he ought to share, but it would not follow from this that his sister has a right to any of the chocolates. To insist that sister does have a right would be obscure the important difference between this case and the case where the chocolates were given to both but brother takes all.
Further objection: If A ought to do a thing for B entails that B has a right against A, then whether or not a person has a right to a will depend on how easy it is to provide him with that thing. Henry Fonda ought to heal you if he happens to be in the room. Not so clear if he is across the country and engaged in important work.
6: Minimally decent / Good Samaritan.