j.j. Thomson and Don Marquis both attempt to address the ethics of abortion without getting bogged down on the question of whether or not a fetus is a person. Select one of these authors and then critically assess a central feature of that author’s argument.
A- Carefully explain the author’s position and the central argument provided in defense of it, making sure to reference relevant details from the primary text.
B- Provide a focused and persuasive evaluation of that author’s argument is successful. But to also defend that assessment, i.e give your reader a good reason to accept it.
C- Consider at least one objection to your evaluation of that author’s argument and at least one normative theory that relates to your assessment of that argument.
D- Include, near the beginning of the paper, a thesis statement, which clearly and precisely articulates what your final conclusion will be.
J.J. Thomson was a good Philosopher. In the Abortion topic, she tried to explain whether the abortion is permissible or not? She made successful arguments over the topic, she discussed the viewpoints of the people who are in favor of abortion and who are not. She argued that even if the fetus is a person, abortion is often morally permissible. She explained this statement by using different examples, which I would like to discuss in between the paper. Abortion is always a controversial topic whether to accept it or not. There have been religious issues, ethical issues, public opinions and other issues over abortion. As the killing of a person is wrong, so the killing of the fetus is also wrong, however, some people think that it just a group of cells, so it can be killed.
Thomson gave strong arguments to accept the abortion can be done in an ethical manner. I would like to explain it by giving examples over it. If it is thought that the killing of the fetus is wrong, however, if the mother’s life is in danger. As both are innocent, both are in a life-threatening position So, what to do whether to save the child or whether to save the mother? According to her, its ethical then to kill a fetus to save a mother’s life. Like if a woman is suffering from a cardiac disease which would eventually affect her and even her fetus. So, what the women should do? It is morally permissible then to abort according to Thomson. However, it’s permissible to have an abortion when the mother’s life is threatened, but only when the mother agrees for it, the third party don’t have any right to defend or go against abortion during this time. Women have the right to decide what’s happening in her body. If someone is using another body for its own, then that person didn’t have the right to live. If we take an example of violinist mentioned in the textbook, that you have been kidnapped to provide something of your body to that person without your will and if the doctor told you that you will be connected with that person for 9 months. What will you do? So, according to Thomson, that person should die. So, from this example, we conclude that the abortion is permissible. However, we See a bunch of examples in which the abortion conflict like whether to do it or not. Like there are some cases in which a fetus can use her mother’s body whereas in some cases the abortion considered to be right. If we take an example of the woman who had done casual sex without any precautions and got pregnant. So, what she should do? Whether she goes for the abortion or have the baby? According to Thomson, that woman can have a baby but if she goes with the abortion, she would be called as self- centered, indecent, not unjust but don’t link with moral values. Same with the case of the women who was raped and got pregnant. However, I personally object this statement of Thomson that the woman who was being raped and got pregnant could have that child. However, if that woman doesn’t want to have that child, she can have abortion but it would be unjust. Whereas, if abortion of that child which the woman didn’t want to have if she aborts that child, then what is wrong with this? The normative theory that applied over here is Hedonistic Theory (do whatever feels good to you). She was aborting that child which she doesn’t want to have it was just pressurized to her to have that child which is wrong.
Like we take the example from the textbook- two brothers got a chocolate box from the mother. The mother gave that box to the elder brother and elder brother accept all the chocolates but haven’t given half of it to its little brother. So, the elder brother would be self – centered but it’s not unjust. If we take an example of violinist mentioned in the textbook, that you have been kidnapped to provide something of your body to that person without your will and if the doctor told you that you have to be connected with that person for 9 months. You can simply say no, that would not be immoral however that would be unjust, as you are not helping someone. Whereas parents who gave birth to child would have special responsibility to take care of that child, but not in the case of the stranger. if we take an example of a good Samaritan, who can help somebody by getting out of his way. Even Jesus said to people to like a good Samaritan. But, when we took a look over the violinist who was kidnapped and being forced to help the violinist. However, this is wrong, a person can help someone according to his own will. So, when comparing this with abortion. A woman can have a baby or can abort according to some circumstances. Like a woman was pregnant and she wants to get abort when it’s being 7 Month of the fetus. So, it would be immoral and wrong. Whereas, if a woman was having some conditions like she was suffering from a disease which could have an effect on herself as well as on the fetus, It’s more like a dreadful situation. So, that woman could go with abortion and It would be morally correct.
Conclusion- Thomson was able to explain what she mentioned in her thesis statement by giving a bunch of examples to prove that how abortion can be done in a keeping it in a moral manner. Even the fetus is a person, abortion is morally permissible (but only under some conditions.)
– Schmor,2018 Accessed on 5August 2018.
– Cahn, S. M. (n.d.). Exploring Ethics, An Introduction To Anthology (4th ed.). USA: Oxford University Press. Accessed on 5August 2018.