“A Defense of Abortion”

1. “A Defense of Abortion” Judith Jarvis Thomson

2. Common Argument Against Abortion 1) A fetus is a person. 2) Every person has a right to life. 3) So, the fetus has a right to life (from 1 and 2) 4) A person’s right to life is stronger than a mother’s right to control her body. 5) Therefore, the fetus cannot be killed (from 3 and 4) 6) An abortion should not be performed.

3. The Fetus is a Person • The most controversial premise in this argument is the first one: “The fetus is a person” • Some argue that the fetus is a person at the moment of conception, others at the moment of birth and others somewhere in-between. • The issue whether the fetus is a person remains very controversial; however, for arguments sake, Thomson is willing to grant the truth of this premise.

4. The fetus is a person • The commonly held belief has been that if the prolife view could argue successfully this premise then the rest of the argument follows with certainty. • Thomson will argue that even if it were true that the fetus is a person, it does not follow that a pregnant woman should not have an abortion. • In other words, even if we grant premise (1) Thomson argues that the conclusion does not follow.

5. Violinist Example • Imagine that one night you are kidnapped and you wake up in the hospital. You notice that you are attached to a man in a bed next to you. • They inform you that the man next to you is a famous violinist who is dying of a fatal kidney disease. • Moreover, that the Society of Music Lovers took you (without your consent) to use your blood to help the violinist survive. • You are the only person in the city whose blood type matches that of the famous violinist. • They tell you that you must remain there for 9 months otherwise the violinist will die.

6. Rights • What are the violinist’s rights against you? • What are your rights? • Do you commit an injustice if your decide not to stay attached to the violinist?

7. Innocence • Let us imagine that the violinist is innocent and he did not know about the plot to kidnap you against your will. • So, like the fetus, the violinist has done nothing wrong. • Still, Thomson argues, he has NO RIGHTS against you or to use your body.

8. Abortion Argument 1) The violinist is a person. 2) Every person has a right to life. 3) So, the violinist has a right to life (from 1 and 2) 4) A person’s right to life is stronger than a person’s right to control her body. 5) Therefore, the violinist cannot be killed (from 3 and 4) 6) Therefore,, you cannot detach yourself from the violinist.

9. Other scenarios • What would you say if the doctors at the hospital said, “We are very sorry. If we would have known we would not have allowed this. But now you cannot unplug yourself. You have to stay here for 9 months” • What if your had to stay for 9 years! • What about if you had to stay for the rest of your life!

10. Thomson's Argument • Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that because you did not consent to this situation the violinist does NOT have a right against you and he does NOT have a right to use your body to stay alive. • Thomson argues that you DO NOT commit an injustice if you decide to detach yourself.

11. 1. The Extreme View • The extreme prolife view claims that abortion is always wrong, even in the case of RAPE and in the case that the MOTHER”S LIFE IS IN DANGER. • In the case of RAPE, Thomson argues the prolife view fails because, as is shown in the violinist case, the fetus has no right to use the mother’s body.

12. Mother’s life is in danger • The mother and the fetus both have a right to life. • The mother also has a right to her body. • Therefore, it would appear that the mother’s rights outweigh those of the fetus. • However, prolife advocates will argue that an abortion actively and intentionally kills a person, while letting the mother die because of child birth does not kill a person intentionally. • Thus they make a distinction between “letting someone die” and “actively killing someone”. They also point out that the fetus does not intend to do harm.

13. Extreme Prolife View 1) Killing an innocent person is always and absolutely impermissible. 2) Killing an innocent person is murder and murder is always absolutely impermissible. 3) one’s duty to refrain from killing an innocent person is more stringent than one’s duty than to keep a person from dying. 4) If one’s options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one must prefer letting a person die.

14. Rebuttal • But isn’t doing nothing or consciously deciding NOT to act, an action of sorts. • If so, then letting someone die is just as bad as killing someone. • After all we would not feel that someone who kills another by pushing them underwater is morally worse than someone who stands next to a drowning persons and watches them die.

15. Thomson • Thomson argues that if you were attached to a violinist and the doctor told you that your kidneys could not sustain the strain and that you would die within a month. You do not have a moral obligation to stay connected. • You would not do something morally wrong if you decide to unplug yourself to save your life, even if an innocent person dies. • This is a case of self-defense.

16. 2. Thomson • “In sum, a woman surely can defend her life against the threat to it posed by the unborn child, even if doing so involves its death.” • Thomson goes on to argue that not only can a mother defend herself and save her life, but further because it is her body she can have a third party assist her in her defense.

17. 3. Prolife View • Let us address the view that abortion is morally impermissible, except in the case of rape and when the mother’s life is in danger. • Thomson argues that this view relies on the claim that the fetus is a person (which she grants for argument’s sake) and that all persons have a right to life.

18. A Right To Life • What does it mean to have a Right To Life? • A right to life means that (1) I be given the bare minimum to survive (2) that I not be killed. • (1) That I be given the bare minimum to survive • But what if that bare minimum is something which I have NO right to.

19. Henry Fonda Example • Thomson argues that having a right to life does not guarantee that you also have a right to all things that your need to continue living. • For instance, if you are dying and all you need to continue to survive is for Henry Fonda to touch you in the forehead, this does not mean that you have a right to have Henry Fonda do so. • Even if this action requires very little sacrifice from Henry Fonda. • If Henry Fonda does this to save your life, it is simply out of kindness and not out of moral duty.

20. 4. Right Deprivation and Injustice • In section numeral (4) Thomson argues that injustice only occur when a person’s rights have been violated. • Consider the following two examples: first, there are 2 siblings John and Mary. Imagine that John is given a box of candy. If he decide not to share with his sister, we cannot say that he has committed an injustice against his sister. The reason is that his sister had no rights to any of the candy. • Second, imagine that the candy is given to both children. In this case if John does not share then he does commit an injustice because his sister does have a right to half of the box of candy and thus John is DEPRIVING her of a legitimate right.

21. Right to Life • The right to life means (2) the right not to be killed. • The emendation she makes to (2) is “the right not to be killed unjustly”

22. The right to life • Thomson then argues that injustice occurs only when one deprives another of their legitimate rights. • Therefore, as long as I do not deprive you of your legitimate right, then I do not commit against you an injustice. • I do not share my candy with you. You do not have a right to the candy. Therefore, I do not commitan injustice against you.

23. Conclusion • The fetus has a right to life. • This means that the fetus has a right not to be killed unjustly. • However, because the fetus does not have a right to use of the mother’s body, a mother does not commit an injustice when it deprives it of the use of her body. • So the mother does not kill it unjustly. • Therefore, the mother does not violate its right to life.

24. Not all Abortions are Permissible • According to Thomson’s argument, an abortion of a fetus who has been given a right to the use of the mother’s body, would be morally impermissible. • The question then becomes, when and how does a woman invite a fetus to use her body?

25. Cantens’ Critique • My central problem with Thomson’s view is her conception of justice and injustice. • She defines unjust acts as acts that violate another’s rights. So that violating another’s rights is a necessary and sufficient condition for injustice. • On my view, violating another’s rights is neither a sufficient condition nor a NECESSARY CONDITION.

26. Not a Sufficient Condition (Maybe) • Imagine a case in which a box of candy is given equally to 2 siblings for their performance in school. However, one of the siblings, Mary, worked very hard and earned very good grades. The other, John, was very lazy and did very poorly. • We might say that the candy was distributed unfairly and unjustly. • Nevertheless, the 2 siblings have an equal right to half of the candy. • Therefore, we can conclude that John has a right to half of the candy even though it is unjust.

27. Not a Necessary Condition • Let us return to the candy example. • According to Thomson, if the box of candy is given only to one of the siblings, then, if that sibling does not share the candy, he commits no injustice because he has not violated the other sibling’s rights (hence violating someone's rights is a necessary condition). • I disagree. In my view the sibling’s selfishness does commit an injustice.

28. 5. Critique • This problem becomes clear in section (5) • Due to Thomson’s narrow definition of injustice, we can have person’s that are callous, mean, have no compassion, unsympathetic, selfish, stingy, greedy, and a host of other terrible character traits, and yet be completely just!

29. Critique Continued • I agree with Thomson that obligations do NOT give rise to rights, so that if person A has a moral obligation toward person B to do x, it does not follow that person B has a right to x from person A. • But I disagree in so far as if person A ought to do x for B and does not do it, then person A has acted immorally and (in my view) unjustly toward person B, even if person B has no rights against person A for x.

30. Critique • Therefore, according to Thomson, if you were required to stay attached to the violinist for only 9 second (minimal sacrifice on your part) to save his life (valuable consequence), we could argue that you ought to do it and if you did not we might conclude that you are a terrible person, yet we cannot conclude that you are unjust. • This makes no sense to me.

31. Thomson • “So my view is that even though you ought to let the violinist use your kidneys for the one hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has a right to do so – we should say that if you refuse you are, like the boy who owns all the chocolates and will give non away, self-centered and callous, indecent in fact, but not unjust.”

32. 6. Two Samaritans and the Law • Good Samaritan • Minimally decent Samaritan • Matter of degrees. • Thomson’s main point is that good Samaritan Laws are improper. • While this might be true this seems to confuse the issue of ethics and the law.

33. 7. Special Responsibility • Thomson raises the issue concerning the special relationship the mother has with the fetus. • However, she argues that this responsibility is completely dependent on the mother implicitly or explicitly creating or assuming it. • Is this right? • Are responsibilities always dependent on our conscious consent? • Can't there be responsibilities thrown upon us, even if we did not ask for them?

34. 8. Final Remarks • First, Thomson notes that under her view not all abortions would be permissible. Her view, therefore, allows context to play a role in determining the moral status of abortion. • Second, the right to detach another person is not the same as the right to kill that person. So, in the case of the violinist, if you were to detach yourself from him and he were to survive, you do not have the right to kill him.