Summary Of A Defense Of Abortion Judith Thomson

In “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Thomson argues with a unique approach regarding the topic of abortion. For the purpose of the argument, Thomas agrees to go against her belief and constructs an argument based on the idea that the fetus is a person at conception. She then formulates her arguments concerning that the right to life is not an absolute right. There are certain situations where abortion is morally permissible. She believes that the fetus’s right to life does not outweigh the right for the woman to control what happens to her own body. This, however, does not mean that she agrees that in all situations the choice to have an abortion wouldn’t be self- centered or callous. To begin, she gives examples for why the right to life of

She argues that with this situation you are aware of risk of becoming pregnant, and with this risk you are accepting the “invitation” of having a fetus to use your body. She thinks you have responsibility for the fetus even though it was not your intention to become pregnant. Going back to her main argument, this would be violating the right to life, as depriving a fetus of its right to life when it has permission to use your body would be unjust killing. I do think that voluntary sex entails giving permission to a fetus to use the woman’s body. I agree with Thomas that even though you may give yourself as much protection as possible during consensual sex, if the sperm enters and causes a pregnancy, you were still completely aware of this consequence. The “awareness” is why I think the child should have permission to use the woman’s body for its right to life. If a person feels so strongly about not wanting to have any chance of becoming pregnant, then that person should not participate in consensual sex. It is unjust to kill a fetus just because it was the unwanted result of your risky actions. To further explore the violinist example, if there was a tiny chance of getting

I formulated this decision comparing my stance on why having consensual sex should result in permission of the fetus to use a woman’s body. Consensual sex isn’t a necessary act of survival like walking outside would be. Consensual sex is merely based off on wanting to experience a form of pleasure. The need for this pleasure is a weak justification to deny usage of another body when the fetus requires it. In other words, you can completely cut consensual sex out of your life with ease, and avoid the controversy over allowing permission for a fetus to grow. In contrast, I think that in order to survive and experience life’s capacity you must be able to walk outside. This dire need is strong enough to make it okay to deny permission to the violinist. Life would not be worth living if walking outside was avoided. Life would still be worth living without consensual sex because life’s other pleasures would still remain that wouldn’t possibly result in depriving someone else’s the ability to live. All in all, walking outside is unavoidable and necessary making it morally okay to repeatedly take a chance getting attached to a violinist and denying permission every time- if you