Author Judith Jarvis Thompson Justifies Claims that Abortion is Moral
Author Judith Jarvis Thompson Justifies Claims that Abortion is Moral
Amiti Sharma
In A Defense of Abortion, American philosopher and author Judith Jarvis Thompson states her pro-choice approach on the highly debated topic of abortion. Though several disagree with her viewpoints and believe pro-life to be the appropriate choice, such as Don Marquis in Why Abortion is Immoral, I believe that Thompson’s argument is stronger and more persuasive. She thoroughly communicates her beliefs and explains when abortion is permissible. Furthermore, Thompson also addresses the opposing viewpoints of abortion, including the pro-life argument, to ensure that the reader fully understands the topic and both sides to the debate. However, an objection to this argument, that purposely terminating any life is immoral, poses obstacles to Thompson’s argument, encouraging her to strengthen and prove her perspectives on abortion more efficiently.
The foundation of the pro-life side is established within the “Extreme View,” or a philosophical proof that outlines the wrongness of abortion. Firstly, the “Extreme View” states that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Secondly, every person has the right to life. So, a fetus has the right to life. Secondly, every person has the right to decide what happens to their body. So, a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body. Lastly, the right to life outweighs the right to decide what happens to your body, therefore proving that abortion is morally impermissible. Although this argument is briefly considered, Thompson does not agree with it. She objects to the statement that the right to life outweighs the right to decide what happens to your body, thereby laying the foundation for the pro-choice perspective.
To justify her objection to the pro-life “Extreme View,” Thompson introduces the example of the violinist. In this case, a popular violinist will die unless he is plugged into a machine for months with someone who is a proper match that can sustain his life. It is determined that you are the only match available that can save him, and one day you wake up attached to this machine with the violinist. The question that is posed here is, is it morally acceptable for you to unplug yourself from the machine if the violinist will die? Thompson believes that it is permissible to unplug yourself from the machine, as you are not responsible for the violinist’s life, thus proving that the right to life does not necessarily outweigh the right to decide what happens to your body.
Another case Thompson makes to prove that the “Extreme View” is false is through two examples of self-defense. One instance is where a woman carrying a child will die giving birth unless she has an abortion. Another instance is where a woman and a rapidly growing baby are trapped in a house, and if the woman does not kill the baby, it will continue to grow and crush her. In both situations, Thompson claims that it is appropriate to kill the child merely because the child is threatening the life of the mother. She states, “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. And this shows that the extreme view of abortion is false.”
Thompson’s final thought on her belief of pro-choice is based on the circumstances under which the woman was sexually active. She states that the fetus has a right to the woman’s body if she had sex voluntarily without using contraception. However, if the woman had sex voluntarily while using a reasonable form of contraception, or in the case of rape, the fetus was not given the right to her body. In Thompson’s people-seed example, people-seeds, which float outside like pollen, come into houses through windows and plant themselves onto the carpet. A woman who does not want children but likes to open her window for fresh air buys the best quality of a protective window screen so the people-seeds cannot come inside. However, one of the screens happens to be defective and lets a people-seed into the house. In buying a reliable window screen, the woman did not give the people-seed the right to her house. Similarly, those who use reliable contraceptives, or whom have been raped, have not given the fetus the right to their bodies. Therefore, according to Thompson, if these women chose to have their pregnancies aborted, the procedures would not be classified as unjust killings.
Thompson’s pro-choice argument is clearly developed and well-formulated. However, there are still many people whom oppose her views. A good objection to Thompson’s argument is presented by Marquis in his passage Why Abortion is Immoral. Marquis states that killing is wrong because it completely denies the victim of a valuable future. He claims every organism has the potential to a valuable future, but if abortions are made permissible, the potential belonging to the unborn children dies along with them during the procedure. He conveys that every organism has the right to gain experiences, participate in activities and projects, and make accomplishments. They also have a right to experience enjoyment and happiness in life. However, they can only be given these opportunities if they have the chance to live.
According to Marquis, the average human typically experiences a near-equal balance of good and bad in their life. It is uncommon, although possible, that someone may have a significant amount of worse in his life than good. Based on these statistics, each fetus that is conceived has an equal chance of experiencing a life balanced equally among good and bad, which typically is considered a normal, or even successful, lifestyle. Therefore, each fetus that undergoes an abortion is prevented from experiencing this well-balanced lifestyle. In my opinion, Marquis’s objection is very accurate and relevant because it is somewhat vaguely based on factual information and statistics. I believe, for example, that someone in the near future may develop a cure for cancer, or become the next United States president. However, every fetus that is aborted loses its rights to experience the world, participate in life, and be successful. Thus, the true potential of those that have been aborted will never be known. Those that have been aborted will never be given the chance to have identities, express themselves, or have valuable futures.
Marquis raises an intense objection towards Thompson’s perspective, but I believe that Thompson’s overall argument is stronger than Marquis’s. Therefore, I do believe it is possible for Thompson to amend her views in light of his objection. When Marquis claims that killing denies the victim of a valuable future, Thompson would likely address the fact that whether or not the victim would have had a valuable future is too farfetched. Firstly, I believe her response to be that the decision of whether to have an abortion or not is something that must be determined almost immediately because when the fetus reached a certain age, doctors will be unable to perform the procedure. Hence, the decision to have an abortion occurs in the present, whereas the possibility of whether the child will or will not have a valuable future is something that will not be determined until the future, and it is unreasonable to contemplate what may or may not occur in the future when a more important decision, of whether to have an abortion or not, needs to be addressed in the present.
I believe Thompson’s next response to Marquis’s objection would be that Marquis only focuses on the valuable future of the fetus, as opposed to focusing on the future of the potential mother as well. For example, a 16-year-old financially unstable girl has been raped and is now pregnant. Thompson would argue that not only is it completely permissible for her to have an abortion, but it is in her best interests to do so. If the victim were to go through with the birth of her child, it is unlikely that either of them would lead successful lives. Since the victim can barely support herself, she will only become more financially unstable having to take care of a child as well. However, if she were to have the abortion, she would have a greater chance of success and living a valuable life. It appears that either both the mother and her child will suffer for the remainder of their lives, or she can have an abortion. If she chooses to do so, she will have higher chance of reaching success. She will also possibly have the opportunity to gain experiences, participate in activities, and enjoy her life. Therefore, it is in her best interest to have an abortion so she, herself, can have a valuable future.
In conclusion, Thompson’s argument is practical and compelling. She effectively demonstrates that pro-choice is the right way to approach abortion through her objection of the “Extreme View,” the example of the violinist, and situations of self-defense. In her final statement, she confidently declares, “At this place, it should be remembered that we have only been pretending that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. A very early abortion is surely not the killing of a person…”. Although Marquis attempts to challenge Thompson’s views, I believe she can respond successfully to his objections, and may even strengthening her argument by doing so. I believe that Thompson’s views on pro-choice are still significantly more convincing than Marquis’s views on pro-life, and she has succeeded in thoroughly depicting that abortion can be morally permissible.
