Dorman 1

Abby Dorman
Dr. Gordon
Phil. 101
April 24. 2015

Argument Explanation/Evaluation #3

Judith Jarvis Thomsons Defense of Abortion discusses whether

or not abortion is permissible under any circumstance, using various

analogies and examining different conflicting arguments. Her main

point is to oppose people who think that abortion is wrong in all cases,

and her essay goes on to describe why there are times when it is

acceptable. Her first argument is against people who only focus on the

status of the fetus as a human and then jump immediately from there

to the idea that abortion is impermissible. She believes that this is a

slippery slope argument and says it is too make a distinction in

development of when a fertilized egg physically becomes a human. For

the sake of her own argument, she assumes throughout the essay that

the fetus is always a human.

Thomsons main analogy that reoccurs throughout the paper tells

the reader to imagine that he or she has been kidnapped and is

connected by the kidneys to a famous violinist. The doctors tell you

that the violinist needs to use your kidneys for nine months to stay

alive, and to unplug from him would mean that he would die. Thomas

compares the choice that this person has to make about whether or

not to unplug from the violinst to the choice that a woman would make

about whether or not to get an abortion in the case of rape. This brings
 Dorman 2

up the issue of right versus responsibility. One of Thomsons main

conflicts in the paper is over which is more important: the fetus right

to life or the womans responsibility to allow the child to use her body

to live.

Another scenario that Thomson brings up is the situation where a

womans life is in danger if she carries the baby to term. She says that

those hold to the extreme view believe that a woman cannot get an

abortion even in this case. They say that abortion is considered killing

an innocent person no matter what. However, Thomson refutes this

claim by saying that the mother does not have sit by and passively

wait for her death. She uses the violinist analogy, saying, If anything

in the world is true, it is that you do not commit murder, you do not do

what is impermissible, if you reach around your back and unplug

yourself from the violinist to save your life. (p. 385) She also uses a

tiny house analogy to describe this situation. In this case, you are

trapped inside a tiny house with a growing child who would eventually

crush you to death and destroy the house. She says you have the right

to attack the child in order to save yourself. In relating it back to

abortion, Thomson writes, 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. (p.385)

For the rest of her essay, Thomson talks about abortion in more

controversial cases where the mothers life is not at stake. It becomes

 Dorman 3

harder to justify an abortion when there is no real threat to the mother.

On page 387 she says, Isnt the childs right to life weightier than

anything over than the mothers own right to life, which she might put

forward as ground for an abortion? She addresses the question of

whether a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of consensual sex

has a responsibility to let the baby grow in her body. She doesnt come

to a conclusion about this, only acknowledges that there is a difference

in choosing an abortion in the case of rape and in the case of a normal

pregnancy. Finally, Thomson spends time discussing what exactly the

fetus, as a human, has a right to. If the fetus has a right to life, she

argues that this consists not in the right not to be killed, but rather in

the right not to be killed unjustly. (p. 388) Her conclusion is that

although it may be the morally good thing to do for a mother to allow

an unborn baby to use her body to sustain its life, the baby does not

own her body and therefore the mother is not unjust in getting an

abortion. She also says that there are cases when abortion is

impermissible, and that even in cases when abortion is permissible the

mother does not have the right to secure the death of the unborn child.

I disagreed with a lot of things in Thomsons article. One of the

main points I disagree with is that a baby does not have the right to

use its mothers body. She says that it is just to let someone use your

body in their hour of need, but they do not have a right that obligates

you to let them use it. While this may be true in the case of her
 Dorman 4

analogies with the violinist and Henry Fonda, I dont think it equates to

the situation of mother and child.

For the same reason, I think her violinist analogy had several

perceivable faults. She sets the amount of time that the person would

have to be plugged in to the violinist at various lengths, from one hour

to a lifetime. She is trying to make the point of whether time matters

when considering a persons right to life, but in pregnancy the amount

of time (nine months) is set in stone. The mother knows exactly how

much time it will take to grow the baby, and she can give it up for

adoption if she doesnt want to commit to any longer than that. Also,

the violinist analogy doesnt deal with the lifelong aspect of

motherhood. In the analogy, you would be removed from the violinist

as soon as the time was up and you would never have any obligation

to them again. In pregnancy, the mother faces a lifetime of

responsibility to her child after it is born unless she gives it up for

adoption. I think that some of her analogies like this lacked strength

because the situation she described was so different than situations

involving mothers and pregnancy.

Thomsons other unsatisfactory analogy is the one about a

burglar entering someones house after they had left the window open.

Thomson argues that it is absurd for someone to say that the burglar

has a right to be in the house just because the window was open, and

in the same way it is absurd to guarantee the baby a right to its

 Dorman 5

mothers body just because she had sex. I think that the mother does

have a responsibility to the baby because she knows the consequences

that could proceed from sex, so she is no longer an innocent party in

the situation.

I do appreciate that Thomson understands that the discussion

about abortion can vary depending on the circumstance. I dont believe

that there is one universal answer, because the surrounding

circumstances can so drastically change the implications of the

pregnancy. I think that in cases of rape and life-ending harm for the

mother, the issue becomes much more complicated. The decision has

to be made case by case and in the end can only come down to the

choice of the mother and father.