Jarvis Thomson And Rosalind Hursthouse: The Permissibility Of Abortion

The permissibility of abortion is a topic of popular debate. The discussions presented by Judith Jarvis Thomson and Rosalind Hursthouse provide two unique viewpoints on the matter. In her essay “A Defense of Abortion”, Thomson presents an argument for the moral permissibility of abortion even if the fetus is granted the right to life, and provides the famous violinist scenario, to illustrate that the right to life does not come with the right to use someone else’s body in order to survive. On the other hand, in the chapter “Women's Rights and Wrongs”, Hursthouse focuses on the concept of virtue and how it applies to the decision to have an abortion. Hursthouse believes Thomson fails to address ways in which abortion is permissible because she

I agree with her viewpoint that undergoing an abortion doesn’t automatically make one a callous or light-minded person. The motives behind opting for an abortion are what might reflect whether one’s actions are selfish or not. I also can agree with Hursthouse about the adoption she provides. The situation where a woman decides to have an abortion because of her inability to raise a child, but unwillingness to allow others to do so is discussed (Hursthouse 212). To me, it seems somewhat self-absorbed and controlling because a woman who has the capability and resources to carry a pregnancy to term should consider adoption as a serious option when contemplating an abortion, regardless of the challenges it may present. I find myself struggling to pick a side because I think both the arguments from Thomson and Hursthouse need to be taken into consideration in the abortion debate. While I don’t entirely agree with Hursthouse’s view that the rights of women and the status of the fetus are irrelevant, my views are somewhat more aligned with her perspective. Overall, Thomson and Hursthouse both recognize scenarios where abortion may be morally permissible, yet their justifications