First, while I do argue that abortion is not impermissible, I do not argue that it is always permissible. For what we have to keep in mind is that the mother and the unborn child are not like two tenants in a small house which has, by an unfortunate mistake, been rented to both: The distinction is familiar in everyday life: 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.
The right to life is not an absolute right. Suppose that box of chocolates I mentioned earlier had not been given to both boys jointly, but was given only to the older boy.
For it seems to me to be of great interest to ask what happens if, for the sake of argument, we allow the premise. Therefore, the fetus has a right to life. Thomson notes that some may argue the affirmative to this question, claiming that " Everybody must refrain from slitting his throat, everybody must refrain from shooting him--and everybody must refrain from unplugging you from him.
There may well be cases in which carrying the child to term requires only Minimally Decent Samaritanism of the mother, and this is a standard we must not fall below.
At all events it seems plain that it was not morally required of any of the thirty-eight that he rush out to give direct assistance at the risk of his own life, and that it is not morally required of anyone that he give long stretches of his life--nine years or nine months--to sustaining the life of a person who has no special right we were leaving open the possibility of this to demand it.
For this reason we may feel that we bystanders cannot interfere. But, Thomson says, the person threatened can intervene, by which justification a mother can rightfully abort. Her reconstruction of the argument against abortion: Probably the most interesting thing about the article is it forces us to think more explicitly about what we think morality demands that we do for other people i.
Some people are rather stricter about the right to life. His relationship with his wife, which began at socialist summer camp, was a source of tension for both their families.
The first thing to be said about this is that it is something new.
We have, in other words, to look now at third-party interventions. But certainly the violinist has no right against you that you shall allow him to continue to use your kidneys. Murder is morally impermissible.Judith Thomson has been visiting professor at the University of Pittsburgh (), the University of California at Berkeley Law School (), and Yale Law School (,), and has held fellowships from the Fulbright Foundation (–), the American Association of University Women (–), the National Endowment for the Humanities (–, –), the Guggenheim.
Judith Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Judith Thomson article simply outlines the right of abortion with women. Judith presents the argument that everyone has a right to life.
bigskyquartet.com (no proxy) bigskyquartet.com  (no proxy) bigskyquartet.com  (no proxy) Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)Author: Judith Jarvis Thomson.
Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion. everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it.
that there are drastic limits to the right of self-defense. If someone threatens you with death unless you. On Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A defence of abortion" Dagmar Wilhelm This is a specially written essay by Dagmar Wilhelm who lectures in philosophy at Keele University.
Judith Jarvis Thompson;s "A Defense of Abortion" The standard argument against abortion rests on the claim that the fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life. Thomson shows why this standard argument against abortion is a somewhat inadequate account of the morality of abortion.Download