Thomson Workbook Notes

In the article, Thomson doesn’t believe the moment of conception makes the fetus a person. However,
for the sake of the argument she grants that the fetus has the right to life while asking whether abortion
is impermissible. Thomson argues that a person is not entitled to use the resources of another person
even if it is to save their life. Therefore, indicating that even though the fetus has been granted
personhood that does not mean the fetus is entitled to use the mother’s body (resources). Thomson
presents several thought experiments to support her claims.

1
TE

Basic Anti-Abortion Argument

P1. Every person has a right to life.

P2. A fetus is considered a person the moment it was conceived.

P3. Therefore, the fetus has a right to life.

P4. To kill something that has a right to life is always impermissible.

P5. Consequently, an abortion is morally wrong because it kills the fetus.

Thomson targets premise 4 by presented cases in which killing something who has the right to life is
permissible.

TE #1: The Famous Violinist Case

A famous violinist has poor functioning kidneys. You so happen to have the same blood type as the
violinist and end up getting kidnapped by The Society of Music Lovers. The Society plugs your body up to
the violinist so that your kidneys can filter out the toxins in the violinist blood.

- In this instance Thomson says you have the moral right to unplug yourself from the violinist.
Although, the violinist will die if you pull the plug. Therefore, it is allowable to kill the violinist.
This case proves premise 4 wrong.
o Side note: why does Thomson use a violinist in this example? Or better yet why
someone famous? Does society value the lives of the talented and famous over the
common people? Would we feel differently if it were an underpaid teacher?

1
TE means Thought Experiment
- Having a right to life .VS. Having a right to someone else’s resources to continue living. The
violinist has a right to life. However, this does not mean he or she has a right to your kidneys or
the next person’s. the violinist has no right to something that he or she doesn’t own. Likewise,
the fetus has no right to claim the mother’s womb even though it has a right to life. The person
who has the desired resources isn’t obligated to give it up in order to continue one’s life. This
overall suggest that abortion is allowable in cases such as rape.
1. The “Extreme view”: abortion is impermissible even to save the mother’s life.
Anti-abortionist would say abortions kills the innocent child. While it would be okay to let the
mother die. Although, Thomson argues that in cases of self-defense murder has not been
committed.
o TE #2: Tiny House Case. The abortion debates commonly focus on the third party’s
response to the woman’s request for an abortion. In a tiny house you are trapped with
a growing child who potentially kills you because of their rapid growth. In this incident
the third party doesn’t want to kill the growing child trapped in the small house with
you. But as an autonomous person with a right to live, you are entitled to defend
yourself in such a situation.
2. Anti-abortionist could say it’s OK. The argument made by anti-abortionist could change in
cases of self defense only if the abortion is performed by the mother not the third party.
Although, Thomson says this isn’t right either. Noting back to the tiny house case the third party
should recognize who the tenant is and who owner is in this scenario. The mother is the owner
of the house (womb) and the fetus is the tenant.
3. Deprive someone of something. It is unjust to deny someone something they have a right to.
o TE #3: Box of Chocolates Case. An older owns a box of chocolates but refuses to let his
younger brother have any. If we assume that these chocolates belong to the older
brother alone, he is not being unjust to his little brother, even though he chooses not to
share. Compared to the woman’s right to abort we could say it is her body, therefore,
she has the right to bodily autonomy.
4. The Right to have the Bare Minimum. The right of life doesn’t involve the person receiving the
bare minimum to survive.
o TE #4: Henry Fonda Case. Suppose you contract a deadly disease. Henry Fonda’s hand
touching your brow is the only cure. It would be unreasonable to think Henry Fonda
should be required to place his hand on your brow to heal you. Similarly, we can not
 assume that the fetus has a right to borrow the mother’s womb because she did not
consent to fetus growing.

5. Pollen analogy. The right to life is to have the right to not be unjustly killed. Although the person
doesn’t have the right to not to be killed at all. Persons are mortals not Immortals.
o TE #5: People-Seed. You install mesh screens around your window to keep out people-
seeds because you decided that you do not want children. However, the screens appear
to be defective. Your window is open, and a people-seed finds its way in your home and
plants itself in your carpet. Thomson questions whether the people-seed has a right to
use your house as a place to grow. She says no because you willingly opened your
window knowing the repercussions. Nevertheless, does this give the people-seed a right
to use your house. Likewise, if you are engaging in sexual intercourse while using
contraceptives but become pregnant the fetus does not have a right to use your womb.

Objections

1. Didn’t the mother invite the fetus to use her womb when she voluntarily chose to have sex
knowing that it was a possibility it would lead to pregnancy even if she did use contraceptives.
o Thomson. You are not responsible for the child if you took necessary precautions to
avoid pregnancy.
2. Compared to being responsible for the violinist doesn’t the mother have a greater
responsibility towards her fetus due her biological relationship with the being.
o Thomson. Either explicitly or implicitly a person doesn’t have responsibility over
something unless they assumed it. (does this only apply to “special” responsibilities)
 However, do we not have responsibility over something because we don’t
assume it. Let’s say I am responsible for doing chores. I don’t have to accept
that I have to do it, but I do have to obedient and do the chores.