Judith Thomson Abortion Essay

Ever since the 1970s, America has been debating one of its most controversial topics: abortion. Pro-choicers have argued for women’s rights and pro-lifers have argued for the rights of unborn children. In the fall of 1971, Judith Thomson—an American moral philosopher—wrote a pivotal essay in Philosophy & Public Affairs titled “A Defense of Abortion” that significantly influenced America’s abortion debate. With the rise of women’s rights in the 1970s, Thomson’s article served as a solid foundation for pro-choice activists across the country. In her paper, she discussed how we are morally obligated to be Minimally Decent Samaritans. Although some may say that there are overlapping characteristics between Good Samaritans and Minimally Decent Samaritans which can make distinguishing the two difficult, I will argue that there is a difference between Good Samaritans and Minimally Decent

Although you had the capability of removing yourself from the situation—you could have disconnected yourself at any time—because you waited the nine months, you committed a supererogatory act. Because of the extensive time to rehabilitate the violinist, people would consider your action a praiseworthy act. Secondly, similar to the reason for the action’s praiseworthiness, nine months is a long time, time that you could have spent traveling, working, or playing with your children; it is personally costing for you stay connected. Thirdly, based on popular opinion, most would conclude that you are not morally obligated to spend nine months connected to the violinist. Both the flat tire example and the original violinist example help define the idea of a Good Samaritan, a selfless person going above and beyond the call of moral duty. With that, however, Thomson does not require the noble ideals of Good Samaritanism; rather, she does require the idea of being minimally