In “A Defense of Abortion,” Thomson’s argument is centered around the general concepts of what one is morally obligated to do, what one ought to do, and what is the right thing to do. Thomson asserts that one is only morally obligated not to violate other people's rights. Meanwhile, the action one ought to take is kind and selfless, which often requires more effort than just not violating others’ rights. Oftentimes, Thomson finds that people associate what one ought to do with what one is morally obligated to do. To warn against this misassociation, Thomson says that one may be callous for not doing what he/she ought to do, but it is not immoral of him/her to do this if no one’s rights were violated. If you do not have a right to use something …show more content…
An action is only immoral if it is unjust and violates someone’s rights, not if someone did the selfish thing he/she ought not to do. Under Thomson’s view of ethics, moral questions arise from questions of justice or rights, not what one ought to do. In abortion cases, Thomson finds that moral permissibility is a question of whether the action of abortion is just since it would be immoral to kill the fetus unjustly, and whether the fetus has rights against its mother. Thomson says that a mother must take special responsibility for the fetus for it to have a right to use her body during the pregnancy. By not taking precautions against pregnancy, like engaging in voluntary intercourse without contraception, and taking actions to promote the life of the child, like taking prenatal supplements, the mother becomes morally obligated to the fetus. Thomson acknowledges that it would be kind of the mother to carry out the pregnancy, especially if it does not inconvenience her well-being, but she does not have a moral obligation to do this, even if one says she ought to, unless she has taken a special responsibility and granted rights to the