19/8/2015

JudithJarvisThomson:ADefenseofAbortion

JudithJarvisThomson:ADefenseofAbortion

FromPhilosophy&PublicAffairs,Vol.1,no.1(Fall1971).

(Reprintedin"InterventionandReflection:BasicIssuesinMedicalEthics,"5thed.,ed.RonaldMunson
(BelmontWadsworth1996).pp6980.)

Mostoppositiontoabortionreliesonthepremisethatthefetusisahumanbeing,aperson,fromthe
momentofconception.Thepremiseisarguedfor,but,asIthink,notwell.Take,forexample,themost
commonargument.Weareaskedtonoticethatthedevelopmentofahumanbeingfromconception
throughbirthintochildhoodiscontinuousthenitissaidthattodrawaline,tochooseapointinthis
developmentandsay"beforethispointthethingisnotaperson,afterthispointitisaperson"istomake
anarbitrarychoice,achoiceforwhichinthenatureofthingsnogoodreasoncanbegiven.Itis
concludedthatthefetusis.oranywaythatwehadbettersayitis,apersonfromthemomentof
conception.Butthisconclusiondoesnotfollow.Similarthingsmightbesaidaboutthedevelopmentof
anacornintoanoaktrees,anditdoesnotfollowthatacornsareoaktrees,orthatwehadbettersaythey
are.Argumentsofthisformaresometimescalled"slipperyslopearguments"thephraseisperhapsself
explanatoryanditisdismayingthatopponentsofabortionrelyonthemsoheavilyanduncritically.

Iaminclinedtoagree,however,thattheprospectsfor"drawingaline"inthedevelopmentofthefetus
lookdim.Iaminclinedtothinkalsothatweshallprobablyhavetoagreethatthefetushasalready
becomeahumanpersonwellbeforebirth.Indeed,itcomesasasurprisewhenonefirstlearnshowearly
initslifeitbeginstoacquirehumancharacteristics.Bythetenthweek,forexample,italreadyhasaface,
armsandless,fingersandtoesithasinternalorgans,andbrainactivityisdetectable.Ontheotherhand,
Ithinkthatthepremiseisfalse,thatthefetusisnotapersonfromthemomentofconception.Anewly
fertilizedovum,anewlyimplantedclumpofcells,isnomoreapersonthananacornisanoaktree.ButI
shallnotdiscussanyofthis.Foritseemstometobeofgreatinteresttoaskwhathappensif,forthesake
ofargument,weallowthepremise.How,precisely,arewesupposedtogetfromtheretotheconclusion
thatabortionismorallyimpermissible?Opponentsofabortioncommonlyspendmostoftheirtime
establishingthatthefetusisaperson,andhardlyanytimeexplainingthestepfromtheretothe
impermissibilityofabortion.Perhapstheythinkthesteptoosimpleandobvioustorequiremuch
comment.Orperhapsinsteadtheyaresimplybeingeconomicalinargument.Manyofthosewhodefend
abortionrelyonthepremisethatthefetusisnotaperson,butonlyabitoftissuethatwillbecomea
personatbirthandwhypayoutmoreargumentsthanyouhaveto?Whatevertheexplanation,Isuggest
thatthesteptheytakeisneithereasynorobvious,thatitcallsforcloserexaminationthanitiscommonly
given,andthatwhenwedogiveitthiscloserexaminationweshallfeelinclinedtorejectit.

Ipropose,then,thatwegrantthatthefetusisapersonfromthemomentofconception.Howdoesthe
argumentgofromhere?Somethinglikethis,Itakeit.Everypersonhasarighttolife.Sothefetushasa
righttolife.Nodoubtthemotherhasarighttodecidewhatshallhappeninandtoherbodyeveryone
wouldgrantthat.Butsurelyaperson'srighttolifeisstrongerandmorestringentthanthemother'sright
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

1/13

19/8/2015

JudithJarvisThomson:ADefenseofAbortion

todecidewhathappensinandtoherbody,andsooutweighsit.Sothefetusmaynotbekilledan
abortionmaynotbeperformed.

Itsoundsplausible.Butnowletmeaskyoutoimaginethis.Youwakeupinthemorningandfind
yourselfbacktobackinbedwithanunconsciousviolinist.Afamousunconsciousviolinist.Hehasbeen
foundtohaveafatalkidneyailment,andtheSocietyofMusicLovershascanvassedalltheavailable
medicalrecordsandfoundthatyoualonehavetherightbloodtypetohelp.Theyhavetherefore
kidnappedyou,andlastnighttheviolinist'scirculatorysystemwaspluggedintoyours,sothatyour
kidneyscanbeusedtoextractpoisonsfromhisbloodaswellasyourown.Thedirectorofthehospital
nowtellsyou,"Look,we'resorrytheSocietyofMusicLoversdidthistoyouwewouldneverhave
permitteditifwehadknown.Butstill,theydidit,andtheviolinistisnowpluggedintoyou.Tounplug
youwouldbetokillhim.Butnevermind,it'sonlyforninemonths.Bythenhewillhaverecoveredfrom
hisailment,andcansafelybeunpluggedfromyou."Isitmorallyincumbentonyoutoaccedetothis
situation?Nodoubtitwouldbeveryniceofyouifyoudid,agreatkindness.Butdoyouhavetoaccede
toit?Whatifitwerenotninemonths,butnineyears?Orlongerstill?Whatifthedirectorofthehospital
says."Toughluck.Iagree.butnowyou'vegottostayinbed,withtheviolinistpluggedintoyou,forthe
restofyourlife.Becauserememberthis.Allpersonshavearighttolife,andviolinistsarepersons.
Grantedyouhavearighttodecidewhathappensinandtoyourbody,butaperson'srighttolife
outweighsyourrighttodecidewhathappensinandtoyourbody.Soyoucannoteverbeunpluggedfrom
him."Iimagineyouwouldregardthisasoutrageous,whichsuggeststhatsomethingreallyiswrongwith
thatplausiblesoundingargumentImentionedamomentago.

Inthiscase,ofcourse,youwerekidnapped,youdidn'tvolunteerfortheoperationthatpluggedthe
violinistintoyourkidneys.CanthosewhoopposeabortiononthegroundImentionedmakeanexception
forapregnancyduetorape?Certainly.Theycansaythatpersonshavearighttolifeonlyiftheydidn't
comeintoexistencebecauseofrapeortheycansaythatallpersonshavearighttolife,butthatsome
havelessofarighttolifethanothers,inparticular,thatthosewhocameintoexistencebecauseofrape
haveless.Butthesestatementshavearatherunpleasantsound.Surelythequestionofwhetheryouhavea
righttolifeatall,orhowmuchofityouhave,shouldn'tturnonthequestionofwhetherornotyouarea
productofarape.AndinfactthepeoplewhoopposeabortiononthegroundImentioneddonotmake
thisdistinction,andhencedonotmakeanexceptionincaseofrape.

Nordotheymakeanexceptionforacaseinwhichthemotherhastospendtheninemonthsofher
pregnancyinbed.Theywouldagreethatwouldbeagreatpity,andhardonthemotherbutallthesame,
allpersonshavearighttolife,thefetusisaperson,andsoon.Isuspect,infact,thattheywouldnot
makeanexceptionforacaseinwhich,miraculouslyenough,thepregnancywentonfornineyears,or
eventherestofthemother'slife.

Somewon'tevenmakeanexceptionforacaseinwhichcontinuationofthepregnancyislikelytoshorten
themother'slife,theyregardabortionasimpermissibleeventosavethemother'slife.Suchcasesare
nowadaysveryrare,andmanyopponentsofabortiondonotacceptthisextremeview.Allthesame,itis
agoodplacetobegin:anumberofpointsofinterestcomeoutinrespecttoit.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

2/13

19/8/2015

JudithJarvisThomson:ADefenseofAbortion

1.
Letuscalltheviewthatabortionisimpermissibleeventosavethemother'slife"theextremeview."I
wanttosuggestfirstthatitdoesnotissuefromtheargumentImentionedearlierwithouttheadditionof
somefairlypowerfulpremises.Supposeawomanhasbecomepregnant,andnowlearnsthatshehasa
cardiacconditionsuchthatshewilldieifshecarriesthebabytoterm.Whatmaybedoneforher?The
fetus,beingtolife,butasthemotherisapersontoo,sohasshearighttolife.Presumablytheyhavean
equalrighttolife.Howisitsupposedtocomeoutthatanabortionmaynotbeperformed?Ifmotherand
childhaveanequalrighttolife,shouldn'tweperhapsflipacoin?Orshouldweaddtothemother'sright
tolifeherrighttodecidewhathappensinandtoherbody,whicheverybodyseemstobereadytogrant
thesumofherrightsnowoutweighingthefetus'srighttolife?

Themostfamiliarargumenthereisthefollowing.Wearetoldthatperformingtheabortionwouldhe
directlykillingsthechild,whereasdoingnothingwouldnotbekillingthemother,butonlylettingher
die.Moreover,inkillingthechild,onewouldbekillinganinnocentperson,forthechildhascommitted
nocrime,andisnotaimingathismother'sdeath.Andthenthereareavarietyofwaysinwhichthis
mightbecontinued.(1)Butasdirectlykillinganinnocentpersonisalwaysandabsolutelyimpermissible,
anabortionmaynotbeperformed.Or,(2)asdirectlykillinganinnocentpersonismurder,andmurderis
alwaysandabsolutelyimpermissible,anabortionmaynotbeperformed.Or,(3)asone'sdutytorefrain
fromdirectlykillinganinnocentpersonismorestringentthanone'sdutytokeepapersonfromdying,an
abortionmaynotbeperformed.Or,(4)ifone'sonlyoptionsaredirectlykillinganinnocentpersonor
lettingapersondie,onemustpreferlettingthepersondie,andthusanabortionmaynotbeperformed.

Somepeopleseemtohavethoughtthatthesearenotfurtherpremiseswhichmustbeaddedifthe
conclusionistobereached,butthattheyfollowfromtheveryfactthataninnocentpersonhasarightto
life.Butthisseemstometobeamistake,andperhapsthesimplestwaytoshowthisistobringoutthat
whilewemustcertainlygrantthatinnocentpersonshavearighttolife,thethesesin(1)through(4)are
allfalse.Take(2),forexample.Ifdirectlykillinganinnocentpersonismurder,andthusis
impermissible,thenthemother'sdirectlykillingtheinnocentpersoninsideherismurder,andthusis
impermissible.Butitcannotseriouslybethoughttobemurderifthemotherperformsanabortionon
herselftosaveherlife.Itcannotseriouslybesaidthatshemustrefrain,thatshemustsitpassivelybyand
waitforherdeath.LetuslookagainatthecaseofyouandtheviolinistThereyouare,inbedwiththe
violinist,andthedirectorofthehospitalsaystoyou,"It'sallmostdistressing,andIdeeplysympathize,
butyouseethisisputtinganadditionalstrainonyourkidneys,andyou'llbedeadwithinthemonth.But
youhavetostaywhereyouareallthesame.becauseunpluggingyouwouldbedirectlykillingan
innocentviolinist,andthat'smurder,andthat'simpermissible."Ifanythingintheworldistrue,itisthat
youdonotcommitmurder,youdonotdowhatisimpermissible,ifyoureacharoundtoyourbackand
unplugyourselffromthatviolinisttosaveyourlife.

Themainfocusofattentioninwritingsonabortionhasbeenonwhatathirdpartymayormaynotdoin
answertoarequestfromawomanforanabortion.Thisisinawayunderstandable.Thingsbeingasthey
are,thereisn'tmuchawomancansafelydotoabortherself.Sothequestionaskediswhatathirdparty
maydo,andwhatthemothermaydo,ifitismentionedatall,ifdeduced,almostasanafterthought,from
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

3/13

19/8/2015

JudithJarvisThomson:ADefenseofAbortion

whatitisconcludedthatthirdpartiesmaydo.Butitseemstomethattotreatthematterinthiswayisto
refusetogranttothemotherthatverystatusofpersonwhichissofirmlyinsistedonforthefetus.Forwe
cannotsimplyreadoffwhatapersonmaydofromwhatathirdpartymaydo.Supposeyoufiledyourself
trappedinatinyhousewithagrowingchild.Imeanaverytinyhouse,andarapidlygrowingchildyou
arealreadyupagainstthewallofthehouseandinafewminutesyou'llbecrushedtodeath.Thechildon
theotherhandwon'tbecrushedtodeathifnothingisdonetostophimfromgrowinghe'llbehurt,butin
theendhe'llsimplyburstopenthehouseandwalkoutafreeman.NowIcouldwellunderstanditifa
bystanderweretosay."There'snothingwecandoforyou.Wecannotchoosebetweenyourlifeandhis,
wecannotbetheonestodecidewhoistolive,wecannotintervene."Butitcannotbeconcludedthatyou
toocandonothing,thatyoucannotattackittosaveyourlife.Howeverinnocentthechildmaybe,youdo
nothavetowaitpassivelywhileitcrushesyoutodeathPerhapsapregnantwomanisvaguelyfelttohave
thestatusofhouse,towhichwedon'tallowtherightofselfdefense.Butifthewomanhousesthechild,
itshouldberememberedthatsheisapersonwhohousesit.

IshouldperhapsstoptosayexplicitlythatIamnotclaimingthatpeoplehavearighttodoanything
whatevertosavetheirlives.Ithink,rather,thattherearedrasticlimitstotherightofselfdefense.If
someonethreatensyouwithdeathunlessyoutorturesomeoneelsetodeath,Ithinkyouhavenotthe
right,eventosaveyourlife,todoso.Butthecaseunderconsiderationhereisverydifferent.Inourcase
thereareonlytwopeopleinvolved,onewhoselifeisthreatened,andonewhothreatensit.Bothare
innocent:theonewhoisthreatenedisnotthreatenedbecauseofanyfault,theonewhothreatensdoesnot
threatenbecauseofanyfault.Forthisreasonwemayfeelthatwebystanderscannotinterfere.Butthe
personthreatenedcan.

Insum,awomansurelycandefendherlifeagainstthethreattoitposedbytheunbornchild,evenif
doingsoinvolvesitsdeath.Andthisshowsnotmerelythatthethesesin(1)through(4)arefalseit
showsalsothattheextremeviewofabortionisfalse,andsoweneednotcanvassanyotherpossible
waysofarrivingatitfromtheargumentImentionedattheoutset.

2.
Theextremeviewcouldofcoursebeweakenedtosaythatwhileabortionispermissibletosavethe
mother'slife,itmaynotbeperformedbyathirdparty,butonlybythemotherherself.Butthiscannotbe
righteither.Forwhatwehavetokeepinmindisthatthemotherandtheunbornchildarenotliketwo
tenantsinasmallhousewhichhas,byanunfortunatemistake,beenrentedtoboth:themotherownsthe
house.Thefactthatshedoesaddstotheoffensivenessofdeducingthatthemothercandonothingfrom
thesuppositionthatthirdpartiescandonothing.Butitdoesmorethanthis:itcastsabrightlightonthe
suppositionthatthirdpartiescandonothing.Certainlyitletsusseethatathirdpartywhosays"Icannot
choosebetweenyou"isfoolinghimselfifhethinksthisisimpartiality.IfJoneshasfoundandfastened
onacertaincoat,whichheneedstokeephimfromfreezing,butwhichSmithalsoneedstokeephim
fromfreezing,thenitisnotimpartialitythatsays"Icannotchoosebetweenyou"whenSmithownsthe
coat.Womenhavesaidagainandagain"Thisbodyismybody!"andtheyhavereasontofeelangry,
reasontofeelthatithasbeenlikeshoutingintothewind.Smith,afterall,ishardlylikelytoblessusifwe
saytohim,"Ofcourseit'syourcoat,anybodywouldgrantthatitis.Butnoonemaychoosebetweenyou
andJoneswhoistohaveit."
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

4/13

19/8/2015

JudithJarvisThomson:ADefenseofAbortion

Weshouldreallyaskwhatitisthatsays"noonemaychoose"inthefaceofthefactthatthebodythat
housesthechildisthemother'sbody.Itmaybesimplyafailuretoappreciatethisfact.Butitmaybe
somethingmoreinteresting,namelythesensethatonehasarighttorefusetolayhandsonpeople,even
whereitwouldbejustandfairtodoso,evenwherejusticeseemstorequirethatsomebodydoso.Thus
justicemightcallforsomebodytogetSmith'scoatbackfromJones,andyetyouhavearighttorefuseto
betheonetolayhandsonJones,arighttorefusetodophysicalviolencetohim.This,Ithink,mustbe
granted.Butthenwhatshouldbesaidisnot"noonemaychoose,"butonly"Icannotchoose,"andindeed
noteventhis,but"Iwillnotact,"leavingitopenthatsomebodyelsecanorshould,andinparticularthat
anyoneinapositionofauthority,withthejobofsecuringpeople'srights,bothcanandshould.Sothisis
nodifficulty.Ihavenotbeenarguingthatanygiventhirdpartymustaccedetothemother'srequestthat
heperformanabortiontosaveherlife,butonlythathemay.

Isupposethatinsomeviewsofhumanlifethemother'sbodyisonlyonloantoher,theloannotbeing
onewhichgivesheranypriorclaimtoit.Onewhoheldthisviewmightwellthinkitimpartialitytosay
"Icannotchoose."ButIshallsimplyignorethispossibility.Myownviewisthatifahumanbeinghas
anyjust,priorclaimtoanythingatall,hehasajust,priorclaimtohisownbody.Andperhapsthis
needn'tbearguedforhereanyway,since,asImentioned,theargumentsagainstabortionwearelooking
atdograntthatthewomanhasarighttodecidewhathappensinandtoherbody.Butalthoughtheydo
grantit,Ihavetriedtoshowthattheydonottakeseriouslywhatisdoneingrantingit.Isuggestthesame
thingwillreappearevenmoreclearlywhenweturnawayfromcasesinwhichthemother'slifeisat
stake,andattend,asIproposewenowdo,tothevastlymorecommoncasesinwhichawomanwantsan
abortionforsomelessweightyreasonthanpreservingherownlife.

3.
Wherethemotherslifeisnotatstake,theargumentImentionedattheoutsetseemstohaveamuch
strongerpull."Everyonehasarighttolife,sotheunbornpersonhasarighttolife."Andisn'tthechild's
righttolifeweightierthananythingotherthanthemother'sownrighttolife,whichshemightput
forwardasgroundforanabortion?

Thisargumenttreatstherighttolifeasifitwereunproblematic.Itisnot,andthisseemstometobe
preciselythesourceofthemistake.

Forweshouldnow,atlonglast,askwhatitcomesto,tohavearighttolife.Insomeviewshavingaright
tolifeincludeshavingarighttobegivenatleastthebareminimumoneneedsforcontinuedlife.But
supposethatwhatinfactISthebareminimumamanneedsforcontinuedlifeissomethinghehasno
rightatalltobegiven?IfIamsickuntodeath,andtheonlythingthatwillsavemylifeisthetouchof
HenryFonda'scoolhandonmyfeveredbrow.thenallthesame,Ihavenorighttobegiventhetouchof
HenryFonda'scoolhandonmyfeveredbrow.ItwouldbefrightfullyniceofhimtoflyinfromtheWest
Coasttoprovideit.Itwouldbelessnice,thoughnodoubtwellmeant,ifmyfriendsflewouttotheWest
coastandbroughtHenryFondabackwiththem.ButIhavenorightatallagainstanybodythatheshould
dothisforme.Oragain,toreturntothestoryItoldearlier,thefactthatforcontinuedlifetheviolinist
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

5/13

19/8/2015

JudithJarvisThomson:ADefenseofAbortion

needsthecontinueduseofyourkidneysdoesnotestablishthathehasarighttobegiventhecontinued
useofyourkidneys.Hecertainlyhasnorightagainstyouthatyoushouldgivehimcontinueduseofyour
kidneys.Fornobodyhasanyrighttouseyourkidneysunlessyougivehimthisrightifyoudoallow
himtogoonusingyourkidneys,thisisakindnessonyourpart,andnotsomethinghecanclaimfrom
youashisdue.Norhasheanyrightagainstanybodyelsethattheyshouldgivehimcontinueduseofyour
kidneys.CertainlyhehadnorightagainsttheSocietyofMusicLoversthattheyshouldplughimintoyou
inthefirstplace.Andifyounowstarttounplugyourself,havinglearnedthatyouwillotherwisehaveto
spendnineyearsinbedwithhim,thereisnobodyintheworldwhomusttrytopreventyou,inorderto
seetoitthatheisgivensomethinghehasarighttobegiven.

Somepeopleareratherstricterabouttherighttolife.Intheirview,itdoesnotincludetherighttobe
givenanything,butamountsto,andonlyto,therightnottobekilledbyanybody.Butherearelated
difficultyarises.Ifeverybodyistorefrainfromkillingthatviolinist,theneverybodymustrefrainfrom
doingagreatmanydifferentsortsofthings.Everybodymustrefrainfromslittinghisthroat,everybody
mustrefrainfromshootinghimandeverybodymustrefrainfromunpluggingyoufromhim.Butdoeshe
havearightagainsteverybodythattheyshallrefrainfromunpluggingyoufrolichim?Torefrainfrom
doingthisistoallowhimtocontinuetouseyourkidneys.Itcouldbearguedthathehasarightagainstus
thatweshouldallowhimtocontinuetouseyourkidneys.Thatis,whilehehadnorightagainstusthat
weshouldgivehimtheuseofyourkidneys,itmightbearguedthatheanywayhasarightagainstusthat
weshallnotnowinterveneanddeprivehimOftheuseofyourkidneys.Ishallcomebacktothirdparty
interventionslater.Butcertainlytheviolinisthasnorightagainstyouthatyoushallallowhimto
continuetouseyourkidneys.AsIsaid,ifyoudoallowhimtousethem,itisakindnessonyourpart,and
notsomethingyouowehim.

ThedifficultyIpointtohereisnotpeculiartotherightoflife.Itreappearsinconnectionwithallthe
othernaturalrights,anditissomethingwhichanadequateaccountofrightsmustdealwith.Forpresent
purposesitisenoughjusttodrawattentiontoit.ButIwouldstressthatIamnotarguingthatpeopledo
nothavearighttolifequitetothecontrary,itseemstomethattheprimarycontrolwemustplaceonthe
acceptabilityofanaccountofrightsisthatitshouldturnoutinthataccounttobeatruththatallpersons
havearighttolife.Iamarguingonlythathavingarighttolifedoesnotguaranteehavingeitherarightto
begiventheuseoforarighttobeallowedcontinueduseofanotherpersonsbodyevenifoneneedsit
forlifeitself.Sotherighttolifewillnotservetheopponentsofabortionintheverysimpleandclearway
inwhichtheyseemtohavethoughtitwould.

4.
Thereisanotherwaytobringoutthedifficulty.Inthemostordinarysortofcase,todeprivesomeoneof
whathehasarighttoistotreathimunjustly.Supposeaboyandhissmallbrotherarejointlygivenabox
ofchocolatesforChristmas.Iftheolderboytakestheboxandrefusestogivehisbrotheranyofthe
chocolates,heisunjusttohim,forthebrotherhasbeengivenarighttohalfofthem.Butsupposethat,
havinglearnedthatotherwiseitmeansnineyearsinbedwiththatviolinist,youunplugyourselffrom
him.Yousurelyarenotbeingunjusttohim,foryougavehimnorighttouseyourkidneys,andnoone
elsecanhavegivenhimanysuchright.Butwehavetonoticethatinunpluggingyourself,youarekilling
himandviolinists,likeeverybodyelse,havearighttolife,andthusintheviewwewereconsidering
justnow,therightnottobekilled.Sohereyoudowhathesupposedlyhasarightyoushallnotdo,but
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

6/13

19/8/2015

JudithJarvisThomson:ADefenseofAbortion

youdonotactunjustlytohimindoingit.

Theemendationwhichmaybemadeatthispointisthis:therighttolifeconsistsnotintherightnottobe
killed,butratherintherightnottobekilledunjustly.Thisrunsariskofcircularity,butnevermind:it
wouldenableustosquarethefactthattheviolinisthasarighttolifewiththefactthatyoudonotact
unjustlytowardhiminunpluggingyourself,therebykillinghim.Forifyoudonotkillhimunjustly,you
donotviolatehisrighttolife,andsoitisnowonderyoudohimnoinjustice.

Butifthisemendationisaccepted,thegapintheargumentagainstabortionstaresusplainlyintheface:
itisbynomeansenoughtoshowthatthefetusisaperson,andtoremindusthatallpersonshavearight
tolifeweneedtobeshownalsothatkillingthefetusviolatesitsrighttolife,i.e.,thatabortionisunjust
killing.Andisit?

Isupposewemaytakeitasadatumthatinacaseofpregnancyduetorapethemotherhasnotgiventhe
unbornpersonarighttotheuseofherbodyforfoodandshelter.Indeed,inwhatpregnancycoulditbe
supposedthatthemotherhasgiventheunbornpersonsucharight?Itisnotasifthereareunbornpersons
driftingabouttheworld,towhomawomanwhowantsachildsaysIinviteyouin."

Butitmightbearguedthatthereareotherwaysonecanhaveacquiredarighttotheuseofanother
person'sbodythanbyhavingbeeninvitedtouseitbythatperson.Supposeawomanvoluntarilyindulges
inintercourse,knowingofthechanceitwillissueinpregnancy,andthenshedoesbecomepregnantis
shenotinpartresponsibleforthepresence,infacttheveryexistence,oftheunbornpersoninside?No
doubtshedidnotinviteitin.Butdoesn'therpartialresponsibilityforitsbeingthereitselfgiveitaright
totheuseofherbody?Ifso,thenherabortingitwouldbemoreliketheboystakingawaythechocolates,
andlesslikeyourunpluggingyourselffromtheviolinistdoingsowouldbedeprivingitofwhatitdoes
havearightto,andthuswouldbedoingitaninjustice.

Andthen,too,itmightbeaskedwhetherornotshecankilliteventosaveherownlife:Ifshevoluntarily
calleditintoexistence,howcanshenowkillit,eveninselfdefense?

Thefirstthingtobesaidaboutthisisthatitissomethingnew.Opponentsofabortionhavebeenso
concernedtomakeouttheindependenceofthefetus,inordertoestablishthatithasarighttolife,justas
itsmotherdoes,thattheyhavetendedtooverlookthepossiblesupporttheymightgainfrommakingout
thatthefetusisdependentonthemother,inordertoestablishthatshehasaspecialkindofresponsibility
forit,aresponsibilitythatgivesitrightsagainstherwhicharenotpossessedbyanyindependentperson
suchasanailingviolinistwhoisastrangertoher.

Ontheotherhand,thisargumentwouldgivetheunbornpersonarighttoitsmother'sbodyonlyifher
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

7/13

19/8/2015

JudithJarvisThomson:ADefenseofAbortion

pregnancyresultedfromavoluntaryact,undertakeninfullknowledgeofthechanceapregnancymight
resultfromit.Itwouldleaveoutentirelytheunbornpersonwhoseexistenceisduetorape.Pendingthe
availabilityofsomefurtherargument,then,wewouldbeleftwiththeconclusionthatunbornpersons
whoseexistenceisduetorapehavenorighttotheuseoftheirmothers'bodies,andthusthataborting
themisnotdeprivingthemofanythingtheyhave~righttoandhenceisnotunjustkilling.

Andweshouldalsonoticethatitisnotatallplainthatthisargumentreallydoesgoevenasfarasit
purportsto.Fortherearecasesandcases,andthedetailsmakeadifference.Iftheroomisstuffy,andI
thereforeopenawindowtoairit,andaburglarclimbsin,itwouldbeabsurdtosay,"Ah,nowhecan
stay,she'sgivenhimarighttotheuseofherhouseforsheispartiallyresponsibleforhispresencethere,
havingvoluntarilydonewhatenabledhimtogetin,infullknowledgethattherearesuchthingsas
burglars,andthatburglarsburgle.''ItwouldbestillmoreabsurdtosaythisifIhadhadbarsinstalled
outsidemywindows,preciselytopreventburglarsfromgettingin,andaburglargotinonlybecauseofa
defectinthebars.Itremainsequallyabsurdifweimagineitisnotaburglarwhoclimbsin,butan
innocentpersonwhoblundersorfallsin.Again,supposeitwerelikethis:peopleseedsdriftaboutinthe
airlikepollen,andifyouopenyourwindows,onemaydriftinandtakerootinyourcarpetsor
upholstery.Youdon'twantchildren,soyoufixupyourwindowswithfinemeshscreens,theverybest
youcanbuy.Ascanhappen,however,andonvery,veryrareoccasionsdoeshappen,oneofthescreens
isdefective,andaseeddriftsinandtakesroot.Doesthepersonplantwhonowdevelopshavearightto
theuseofyourhouse?Surelynotdespitethefactthatyouvoluntarilyopenedyourwindows,you
knowinglykeptcarpetsandupholsteredfurniture,andyouknewthatscreensweresometimesdefective.
Someonemayarguethatyouareresponsibleforitsrooting,thatitdoeshavearighttoyourhouse,
becauseafterallyoucouldhavelivedoutyourlifewithbarefloorsandfurniture,orwithsealedwindows
anddoors.Butthiswon'tdoforbythesametokenanyonecanavoidapregnancyduetorapebyhaving
ahysterectomy,oranywaybyneverleavinghomewithouta(reliable!)army.

Itseemstomethattheargumentwearelookingatcanestablishatmostthattherearesomecasesin
whichtheunbornpersonhasarighttotheuseofitsmother'sbody,andthereforesomecasesinwhich
abortionisunjustkilling.Thereisroomformuchdiscussionandargumentastopreciselywhich,ifany.
ButIthinkweshouldsidestepthisissueandleaveitopen,foratanyratetheargumentcertainlydoesnot
establishthatallabortionisunjustkilling.

5.
Thereisroomforyetanotherargumenthere,however.Wesurelymustallgrantthattheremaybecases
inwhichitwouldbemorallyindecenttodetachapersonfromyourbodyatthecostofhislife.Suppose
youlearnthatwhattheviolinistneedsisnotnineyearsofyourlife,butonlyonehour:allyouneeddoto
savehislifeistospendonehourinthatbedwithhim.Supposealsothatlettinghimuseyourkidneysfor
thatonehourwouldnotaffectyourhealthintheslightest.Admittedlyyouwerekidnapped.Admittedly
youdidnotgiveanyonepermissiontoplughimintoyou.Neverthelessitseemstomeplainyououghtto
allowhimtouseyourkidneysforthathouritwouldbeindecenttorefuse.

Again,supposepregnancylastedonlyanhour,andconstitutednothreattolifeorhealth.Andsuppose
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

8/13

19/8/2015

JudithJarvisThomson:ADefenseofAbortion

thatawomanbecomespregnantasaresultofrape.Admittedlyshedidnotvoluntarilydoanythingto
bringabouttheexistenceofachild.Admittedlyshedidnothingatallwhichwouldgivetheunborn
personarighttotheuseofherbody.Allthesameitmightwellbesaid,asinthenewlyamended
violiniststory,thatsheoughttoallowittoremainforthathourthatitwouldbeindecentofherto
refuse.

Nowsomepeopleareinclinedtousetheterm"right"insuchawaythatitfollowsfromthefactthatyou
oughttoallowapersontouseyourbodyforthehourheneeds,thathehasarighttouseyourbodyfor
thehourheneeds,eventhoughhehasnotbeengiventhatrightbyanypersonoract.Theymaysaythatit
followsalsothatifyourefuse,youactunjustlytowardhim.Thisuseofthetermisperhapssocommon
thatitcannotbecalledwrongneverthelessitseemstometobeanunfortunatelooseningofwhatwe
woulddobettertokeepatightreinon.SupposethatboxofchocolatesImentionedearlierhadnotbeen
giventobothboysjointly,butwasgivenonlytotheolderboy.Therehesitsstolidlyeatinghisway
throughthebox.hissmallbrotherwatchingenviously.Herewearelikelytosay,"Yououghtnottobeso
mean.Yououghttogiveyourbrothersomeofthosechocolates."Myownviewisthatitjustdoesnot
followfromthetruthofthisthatthebrotherhasanyrighttoanyofthechocolates.Iftheboyrefusesto
givehisbrotheranyheisgreedystingy.callousbutnotunjust.IsupposethatthepeopleIhaveinmind
willsayitdoesfollowthatthebrotherhasarighttosomeofthechocolates,andthusthattheboydoes
actunjustlyifherefusestogivehisbrotherany.Buttheeffectofsaying,thisistoobscurewhatwe
shouldkeepdistinct,namelythedifferencebetweentheboy'srefusalinthiscaseandtheboy'srefusalin
theearliercase,inwhichtheboxwasgiventobothboysjointly,andinwhichthesmallbrotherthushad
whatwasfromanypointofviewcleartitletohalf.

Afurtherobjectiontosousingtheterm"right"thatfromthefactthatAoughttodoathingforBit
followsthatRhasarightagainstAthatAdoitforhim,isthatitisgoingtomakethequestionof
whetherornotamanhasarighttoathingturnonhoweasyitistoprovidehimwithitandthisseems
notmerelyunfortunate,butmorallyunacceptable.TakethecaseofHenryFondaagain.Isaidearlierthat
IhadnorighttothetouchofhiscoolhandonmyfeveredbroweventhoughIneededittosavemylife.I
saiditwouldbefrightfullyniceofhimtoflyinfromtheWestCoasttoprovidemewithit,butthatIhad
norightagainsthimthatheshoulddoso.Butsupposeheisn'tontheWestCoast.Supposehehasonlyto
walkacrosstheroom,placeahandbrieflyonmybrowandlo,mylifeissaved.Thensurelyheoughtto
doititwouldbeindecenttorefuse.Isittobesaid,"Ah,well,itfollowsthatinthiscaseshehasarightto
thetouchofhishandonherbrow,andsoitwouldbeaninjusticeinhimtorefuse"?SothatIhavearight
toitwhenitiseasyforhimtoprovideit,thoughnorightwhenit'shard?It'sratherashockingideathat
anyone'srightsshouldfadeawayanddisappearasitgetsharderandhardertoaccordthemtohim.

Somyownviewisthateventhoughyououghttolettheviolinistuseyourkidneysfortheonehourhe
needs,weshouldnotconcludethathehasarighttodosoweshouldsaythatifyourefuse,youare,like
theboywhoownsallthechocolatesandwillgivenoneaway,selfcenteredandcallous,indecentinfact,
butnotunjust.Andsimilarly,thatevensupposingacaseinwhichawomanpregnantduetorapeoughtto
allowtheunbornpersontouseherbodyforthehourheneeds,weshouldnotconcludethathehasaright
todosoweshouldsaythatsheisselfcentered,callous,indecent,butnotunjust,ifsherefuses.The
complaintsarenolessgravetheyarejustdifferent.However,thereisnoneedtoinsistonthispoint.If
anyonedoeswishtodeduce"hehasaright"from"youought,"thenallthesamehemustsurelygrant
thattherearecasesinwhichitisnotmorallyrequiredofyouthatyouallowthatviolinisttouseyour
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

9/13

19/8/2015

JudithJarvisThomson:ADefenseofAbortion

kidneys,andinwhichhedoesnothavearighttousethem,andinwhichyoudonotdohimaninjustice
ifyourefuse.Andsoalsoformotherandunbornchild.Exceptinsuchcasesastheunbornpersonhasa
righttodemanditandwewereleavingopenthepossibilitythattheremaybesuchcasesnobodyis
morallyrequiredtomakelargesacrifices,ofhealth,ofallotherinterestsandconcerns,ofallotherduties
andcommitments,fornineyears,orevenforninemonths,inordertokeepanotherpersonalive.

6.
WehaveinfacttodistinguishbetweentwokindsofSamaritan:theGoodSamaritanandwhatwemight
calltheMinimallyDecentSamaritan.ThestoryoftheGoodSamaritan,youwillremember,goeslike
this:

AcertainmanwentdownfromJerusalemtoJericho,andfellamongthieves,whichstrippedhimofhis
raiment,andwoundedhim,anddeparted,leavinghimhalfdead.
Andbychancetherecamedownacertainpriestthatway:andwhenhesawhim,hepassedbyonthe
otherside.
AndlikewiseaLevite,whenhewasattheplace,cameandlookedonhim,andpassedbyontheother
side.
ButacertainSamaritan,ashejourneyed,camewherehewas,andwhenhesawhimhehadcompassion
onhim.
Andwenttohim,andbounduphiswounds,pouringinoilandwine,andsethimonhisownbeast,and
broughthimtoaninn,andtookcareofhim.
Andonthemorrow,whenhedeparted,hetookouttwopence,andgavethemtothehost,andsaidunto
him,"Takecareofhimandwhatsoeverthouspendestmore,whenIcomeagain,Iwillrepaythee."
(Luke10:3035)

TheGoodSamaritanwentoutofhisway,atsomecosttohimself,tohelponeinneedofit.Wearenot
toldwhattheoptionswere,thatis,whetherornotthepriestandtheLevitecouldhavehelpedbydoing
lessthantheGoodSamaritandid,butassumingtheycouldhave,thenthefacttheydidnothingatall
showstheywerenotevenMinimallyDecentSamaritans,notbecausetheywerenotSamaritans,but
becausetheywerenotevenminimallydecent.

Thesethingsareamatterofdegree,ofcourse,butthereisadifference,anditcomesoutperhapsmost
clearlyinthestoryofKittyGenovese,who,asyouwillremember,wasmurderedwhilethirtyeight
peoplewatchedorlistened,anddidnothingatalltohelpher.AGoodSamaritanwouldhaverushedout
togivedirectassistanceagainstthemurderer.Orperhapswehadbetterallowthatitwouldhavebeena
SplendidSamaritanwhodidthis,onthegroundthatitwouldhaveinvolvedariskofdeathforhimself.
Butthethirtyeightnotonlydidnotdothis,theydidnoteventroubletopickupaphonetocallthe
police.MinimallyDecentSamaritanismwouldcallfordoingatleastthat,andtheirnothavingdoneit
wasmonstrous.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

10/13

19/8/2015

JudithJarvisThomson:ADefenseofAbortion

AftertellingthestoryoftheGoodSamaritan,Jesussaid,"Go,anddothoulikewise."Perhapshemeant
thatwearemorallyrequiredtoactastheGoodSamaritandid.Perhapshewasurgingpeopletodomore
thanismorallyrequiredofthem.Atalleventsitseemsplainthatitwasnotmorallyrequiredofanyof
thethirtyeightthatherushouttogivedirectassistanceattheriskofhisownlife,andthatitisnot
morallyrequiredofanyonethathegivelongstretchesofhislifenineyearsorninemonthsto
sustainingthelifeofapersonwhohasnospecialright(wewereleavingopenthepossibilityofthis)to
demandit.

Indeed,withoneratherstrikingclassofexceptions,nooneinanycountryintheworldislegallyrequired
todoanywherenearasmuchasthisforanyoneelse.Theclassofexceptionsisobvious.Mymain
concernhereisnotthestateofthelawinrespecttoabortion,butitisworthdrawingattentiontothefact
thatinnostateinthiscountryisanymancompelledbylawtobeevenaMinimallyRecentSamaritanto
anypersonthereisnolawunderwhichchargescouldbebroughtagainstthethirtyeightwhostoodby
whileKittyGenovesedied.Bycontrast,inmoststatesinthiscountrywomenarecompelledbylawtobe
notmerelyMinimallyDecentSamaritans,butGoodSamaritanstounbornpersonsinsidethem.This
doesn'tbyitselfsettleanythingonewayortheother,becauseitmaywellbearguedthatthereshouldbe
lawsinthiscountryasthereareinmanyEuropeancountriescompellingatleastMinimallyDecent
Samaritanism.Butitdoesshowthatthereisagrossinjusticeintheexistingstateofthelaw.Andit
showsalsothatthegroupscurrentlyworkingagainstliberalizationofabortionlaws,infactworking
towardhavingitdeclaredunconstitutionalforastatetopermitabortion,hadbetterstartworkingforthe
adoptionofGoodSamaritanlawsgenerally,orearnthechargethattheyareactinginbadfaith.

Ishouldthink,myself,thatMinimallyDecentSamaritanlawswouldbeonething,GoodSamaritanlaws
quiteanother,andinfacthighlyimproper.Butwearenothereconcernedwiththelaw.Whatweshould
askisnotwhetheranybodyshouldbecompelledbylawtobeaGoodSamaritan,butwhetherwemust
accedetoasituationinwhichsomebodyisbeingcompelledbynature,perhapstobeaGood
Samaritan.Wehave,inotherwords,tolooknowatthirdpartyinterventions.Ihavebeenarguingthatno
personismorallyrequiredtomakelargesacrificestosustainthelifeofanotherwhohasnorightto
demandthem,andthisevenwherethesacrificesdonotincludelifeitselfwearenotmorallyrequiredto
beGoodSamaritansoranywayVeryGoodSamaritanstooneanother.Butwhatifamancannotextricate
himselffromsuchasituation?Whatifheappealstoustoextricatehim?Itseemstomeplainthatthere
arecasesinwhichwecan,casesinwhichaGoodSamaritanwouldextricatehim.Thereyouare,you
werekidnapped,andnineyearsinbedwiththatviolinistlieaheadofyou.Youhaveyourownlifeto
lead.Youaresorry,butyousimplycannotseegivingupsomuchofyourlifetothesustainingofhis.
Youcannotextricateyourself,andaskustodoso.Ishouldhavethoughtthatinlightofhishavingno
righttotheuseofyourbodyitwasobviousthatwedonothavetoaccedetoyourbeingforcedtogive
upsomuch.Wecandowhatyouask.Thereisnoinjusticetotheviolinistinourdoingso.

7.
Followingtheleadoftheopponentsofabortion,Ihavethroughoutbeenspeakingofthefetusmerelyasa
person,andwhatIhavebeenaskingiswhetherornottheargumentwebeganwith,whichproceedsonly
fromthefetus'sbeingaperson,reallydoesestablishitsconclusion.Ihavearguedthatitdoesnot.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

11/13

19/8/2015

JudithJarvisThomson:ADefenseofAbortion

Butofcoursethereareargumentsandarguments,anditmaybesaidthatIhavesimplyfastenedonthe
wrongone.Itmaybesaidthatwhatisimportantisnotmerelythefactthatthefetusisaperson,butthat
itisapersonforwhomthewomanhasaspecialkindofresponsibilityissuingfromthefactthatsheisits
mother.Anditmightbearguedthatallmyanalogiesarethereforeirrelevantforyoudonothavethat
specialkindofresponsibilityforthatviolinistHenryFondadoesnothavethatspecialkindof
responsibilityforme.Andourattentionmightbedrawntothefactthatmenandwomenbothare
compelledbylawtoprovidesupportfortheirchildren

Ihaveineffectdealt(briefly)withthisargumentinsection4abovebuta(stillbriefer)recapitulation
nowmaybeinorder.Surelywedonothaveanysuch"specialresponsibility"forapersonunlesswe
haveassumedit,explicitlyorimplicitly.Ifasetofparentsdonottrytopreventpregnancy,donotobtain
anabortion,butrathertakeithomewiththem,thentheyhaveassumedresponsibilityforit,theyhave
givenitrights,andtheycannotnowwithdrawsupportfromitatthecostofitslifebecausetheynowfind
itdifficulttogoonprovidingforit.Butiftheyhavetakenallreasonableprecautionsagainsthavinga
child,theydonotsimplybyvirtueoftheirbiologicalrelationshiptothechildwhocomesintoexistence
haveaspecialresponsibilityforit.Theymaywishtoassumeresponsibilityforit,ortheymaynotwish
to.AndIamsuggestingthatifassumingresponsibilityforitwouldrequirelargesacrifices,thenthey
mayrefuse.AGoodSamaritanwouldnotrefuseoranyway,aSplendidSamaritan,ifthesacrificesthat
hadtobemadewereenormous.ButthensowouldaGoodSamaritanassumeresponsibilityforthat
violinistsowouldHenryFonda,ifheisaGoodSamaritan,flyinfromtheWestCoastandassume
responsibilityforme.

8.
Myargumentwillbefoundunsatisfactoryontwocountsbymanyofthosewhowanttoregardabortion
asmorallypermissible.First,whileIdoarguethatabortionisnotimpermissible,Idonotarguethatitis
alwayspermissible.TheremaywellbecasesinwhichcarryingthechildtotermrequiresonlyMinimally
DecentSamaritanismofthemother,andthisisastandardwemustnotfallbelow.Iaminclinedtothink
itameritofmyaccountpreciselythatitdoesnotgiveageneralyesorageneralno.Itallowsforand
supportsoursensethat,forexample,asickanddesperatelyfrightenedfourteenyearoldschoolgirl,
pregnantduetorape,mayofcoursechooseabortion,andthatanylawwhichrulesthisoutisaninsane
law.Anditalsoallowsforandsupportsoursensethatinothercasesresorttoabortionisevenpositively
indecent.Itwouldbeindecentinthewomantorequestanabortion,andindecentinadoctortoperform
it,ifsheisinherseventhmonth,andwantstheabortionjusttoavoidthenuisanceofpostponingatrip
abroad.TheveryfactthattheargumentsIhavebeendrawingattentiontotreatallcasesofabortion,or
evenallcasesofabortioninwhichthemother'slifeisnotatstake,asmorallyonaparoughttohave
madethemsuspectattheoutset.

Second,whileIamarguingforthepermissibilityofabortioninsomecases,Iamnotarguingfortheright
tosecurethedeathoftheunbornchild.Itiseasytoconfusethesetwothingsinthatuptoacertainpoint
inthelifeofthefetusitisnotabletosurviveoutsidethemother'sbodyhenceremovingitfromherbody
guaranteesitsdeath.Buttheyareimportantlydifferent.Ihavearguedthatyouarenotmorallyrequiredto
spendninemonthsinbed,sustainingthelifeofthatviolinist,buttosaythisisbynomeanstosaythatif,
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

12/13

19/8/2015

JudithJarvisThomson:ADefenseofAbortion

whenyouunplugyourself,thereisamiracleandhesurvives,youthenhavearighttoturnroundandslit
histhroat.Youmaydetachyourselfevenifthiscostshimhislifeyouhavenorighttobeguaranteedhis
death,bysomeothermeans,ifunpluggingyourselfdoesnotkillhim.Therearesomepeoplewhowill
feeldissatisfiedbythisfeatureofmyargument.Awomanmaybeutterlydevastatedbythethoughtofa
child,abitofherself,putoutforadoptionandneverseenorheardofagain.Shemaythereforewantnot
merelythatthechildbedetachedfromher,butmore,thatitdie.Someopponentsofabortionareinclined
toregardthisasbeneathcontempttherebyshowinginsensitivitytowhatissurelyapowerfulsourceof
despair.Allthesame,Iagreethatthedesireforthechild'sdeathisnotonewhichanybodymaygratify,
shoulditturnouttobepossibletodetachthechildalive.

Atthisplace,however,itshouldberememberedthatwehaveonlybeenpretendingthroughoutthatthe
fetusisahumanbeingfromthemomentofconception.Averyearlyabortionissurelynotthekillingofa
person,andsoisnotdealtwithbyanythingIhavesaidhere.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

13/13