The reading that I will be criticizing is “A Defense of Abortion,” by Judith Jarvis

Thomson. The conclusion that the author is trying to prove is that in many cases, abortion is

morally permissible. To begin her defense of abortion, Thomson initially takes the problem of

personhood and throws it away. She elaborates on how it is too confusing, and we cannot

determine when exactly a fetus is considered a person. Delving into how it can be considered a

“slippery slope” argument, she justifies herself by dismissing the argument of personhood.

Similarly, she describes how those opposing abortions spend too much time on when the fetus

becomes a person, and therefore lack when it comes to explaining it in terms of morality. With

her argument, she satisfies the personhood argument by stating that for now, personhood starts at

conception.

Leading off of this, she describes an initial objection of how everyone has the right to life

and so a fetus has the right to life. She counters this argument with her first thought experiment.

Her first thought experiment analyzes you being kidnapped because you are the only one who

can save an unconscious violinist's life. From there, she goes on to explain how you are hooked

up to the violinist, and you are the only thing keeping them alive. There becomes this dilemma of

either unplugging and killing him or staying nine months until he is cured. From this, Thomson

explains how you do not have the moral duty to stay plugged into him, but it would be nice of

you to do so. To support showing how we do not have the moral duty to do it, Thomson displays

a longer period of time to enhance her ideas. She goes from nine months to nine years, and then a

lifetime. By appealing to logic and the principle of autonomy, she allows us to understand that it

would not be fair to be plugged into this violinist for the rest of your life without your consent.

This thought example is used as a metaphor for pregnancy caused by rape.

 Afterward, Thomson depicts how those opposing abortion would likely not make an

exception for rape, and possibly even for saving the life of the mother. Although this is an

extreme view, so not many would hold it. This then leads her to her next point about abortion to

save the mother’s life. Thomson states how opposing abortion when it comes to saving the life of

the mother is the “extreme view.” The argument for this extreme view is represented, and it

similarly aligns with the trolly problem. If there was an abortion, it would be directly killing the

child. If there was no abortion, we would be allowing the mother to die, but not killing her. The

child is also innocent and does not intend for the death of the mother. Thomson then elaborates

on four possible premises for why an innocent person has the right to life. These display an array

of bad arguments, and Thomson says they are all false. To support this, she takes the second

argument about how killing innocent persons is murder and how abortion kills innocent people

and she denies it. She appeals to common sense and says it cannot seriously be thought to be

murder if the mother is performing it on herself to save her own life. To support this

commonsense view, she goes back to the thought experiment of the violinist and conveys how it

would not be morally wrong to unplug yourself from them.

This brings us to the second thought experiment about being in a tiny house with a

rapidly growing child, and the child has gotten so big you are about to be crushed against the

wall. If nothing is done to stop him, he will kill you while he will only be hurt. After, he walks

out free, with no consequences or anything. Thomson uses this example to explain how no

matter how innocent the child is, you do not have to die from it. You are the owner of the house

in this scenario, and therefore you have the final decision.

After this thought experiment, Thomson acknowledges how people do not have the right

to do anything they want to save their lives though. This case examines two people who are
innocent. Neither one is at fault for threatening the other. We naturally feel as if these two are

now the only ones who can intervene, and that bystanders should not. Ultimately, Thomson

utilizes these examples to show that the extreme view of abortion is false and that it is not

immoral to have an abortion if it means preserving your life.

The second argument Thomson brings up is how the extreme argument could be

weakened by some to say that it should then be the mother who does the abortion, not a third

party. She points out how it supposes that third parties can do nothing, and brings about the

example of the house again. This time, she exemplifies this idea by now saying that the mother is

the owner, but rented out half the house to the fetus, so sometimes there needs to be intervention

to solve the problem. She explains this in terms of an example of where it is freezing outside, and

one person who does not have a coat is not entitled to the coat someone else owns.

In the third argument presented against abortion, Thomson considers a situation in which

the mother’s life is not at risk and everyone, including the unborn child, has a right to life.

Thomson refutes this by stating that this argument dismisses the right to life as a problem. The

right to life is ambiguous, and in some instances, it can imply that you have to get something you

do not have the right to be given. She supports this by going back to the violinist and explaining

that they do not have the right to use you to stay alive, and you should not be obligated to stay

plugged into the violinist. It is essentially just a kindness for you to allow the violinist to stay

alive. Thomson assures her audience that she is not arguing that people do not have the right to

life, but that the right to life does not include using and exploiting others for your own benefit. In

the end, Thomson denounces the argument that everyone has the right to life, so a fetus should

have the right to life too.

 Next, Thomson brings light to how the right to life consists of not being killed unjustly.

She uses a box of chocolates given to two boys to represent this. In the example, one boy takes

all the chocolates, even though the other had a right to half of them. She analyzes how this is

unjust treatment, but it differs from the violinist example. With the violinist, he is not necessarily

entitled to you being there, and therefore by unplugging yourself, you would not be acting

unjustly. This then ties into abortion because there are cases, especially with rape, where a baby

is not invited to be in a woman’s body. By having an abortion, you are not treating it unjustly. On

the other hand, Thomson takes into account voluntary pregnancy. From this, if a woman decides

to get an abortion, it would be more similar to the example with the box of chocolates. It can be

considered unjust, not just.

Facing the problem of whether you can have an abortion if it is to save one’s life even if

getting pregnant was voluntary, another argument presented is that the fetus is dependent, so the

mother has an obligation to protect it. Thomson combats this through the fact that it entirely

leaves out instances of rape. It would say that abortions due to rape are not unjust killings, and

their argument would be flawed. From here, Thomson shifts to another thought experiment about

how we would not want a burglar to stay if they climbed in through an open window. We did not

invite them in. This then transitions to a metaphor with pollen and how you do everything in

your power to prevent it from coming in. Even with this done, there is still a chance that there

will be a mishap, and the pollen will get in. If you took extremely preventative measures to not

get pregnant, it can still happen and when it does it is unwanted. It is another reason in favor of

abortion.

Thomson also brings attention to the idea of shortening the timeline of pregnancy and

discusses what if the time of pregnancy was just one hour. The idea of the violinist is brought
back up again to support this. This is not the case, but if it were, Thomson says that it seems like

you ought to not get an abortion. You are almost unaffected, and it would be indecent to not do

so.

Essentially, Thomson argues that abortion is not always permissible, but it is permissible

on many counts. Especially when it comes to younger rape victims, abortion should always be

permissible. Thomson also argues that you are not required to hold a fetus for nine months when

pregnant. You have a choice to not do so. With this being said, if somehow the baby survives an

abortion, Thomson says that you have an obligation to kill it since you did not want it in the first

place. Some women are devastated by the thought of a part of them being put up for adoption, so

if it was originally your intent to kill it, then hypothetically it would be necessary for you to kill

it.

Two moral principles that are consistently shown throughout Thomson’s argument are the

principle of justice and the principle of autonomy. This shows that the argument is based on

deontological views. The principle of autonomy is displayed throughout the argument through

the explanation that people have the right to choose. If you did not want something, then why be

stuck with it for the rest of your life? This seems unfair, and the principle of autonomy is utilized

to exhibit reasons why one is permissible in their decision with getting an abortion. Specifically,

this is shown through the idea of pregnancy from rape. This coincides with the principle of

autonomy because, especially if you are young, your life should not have to be ruined by

someone else, and you are not entitled to a baby that is not wanted. She uses the metaphor of

being kidnapped to save a famous violinist. Of course, it would be kind to save the violinist, but

your autonomy was stripped when you were kidnapped and hooked up to the violinist, and it

may not be what you want. Therefore, by having the decision of unplugging yourself from the
violinist, the principle of autonomy is being supported because you are able to do what you want,

and do not have to conform to premade decisions by other people.

The principle of justice is supported by Thomson when she discusses the right to life.

One of the major points that were made was that the right to life includes not being killed

unjustly. When analyzing this in comparison to the principle of justice, you are not breaking the

principle of justice as long as you are not killing something in an unjust way. Again, Thomson

shows this through the violinist thought experiment relating to rape. If you wanted to detach

yourself from the violinist, you may do so, and it would not be killing him unjustly because you

have no obligation to him and you may not have wanted to be there in the first place. You are

doing no injustice. Part of justice includes the right to life, and Thomson makes the connection

that part of the right to life includes not being killed unjustly. An abortion is not an unjust killing

and therefore does not violate the principle of justice. With rape, the baby is not invited into the

body, and therefore it is not unjust. Similarly, Thomson makes the comparison of two boys

getting a box of chocolates, and one takes it even though the other was entitled to half of it. The

boy who took all the chocolates in this case is violating the principle of justice because he was

not entitled to all of them. This is dissimilar to instances of abortion with rape because the baby

is not entitled to the woman’s body. Ultimately, Thomson appeals to the principle of justice, and

how abortion in some instances does not violate it, hence it is permissible.

Part II

Essentially, while Thomson argues the deontological view and how rights are not

absolute (especially for the unborn), she does not take into consideration the consequentialism
view, which entails extremely important aspects. These views take into account suffering, harm,

losses, and promoting the greater good, which is critical to our way of life.

Initially, Thomson does not instill the principle of utility, which is to maximize

the well-being of everyone involved. She says that one has the right to do what they want when it

comes to abortion because the fetus is in her body, so she gets to choose whether to protect it.

With all cases of abortion, this ignores the principle of utility because if you are taking away the

life of an unborn child, you are doing it harm. Thomson, for the sake of her paper, identifies the

fetus as a person at the moment of conception, which makes her case even worse. Now that it is a

person, it would logically follow that the consequences are more important than a deontological

approach. As soon as it is a person, the principle of utility elaborates on the idea that you have to

try and benefit all people involved. This contradicts Thomson’s argument that the mother has a

right to abortion when they deem fit because it is their body. Doing so would benefit the mother

but harm the baby, which does not follow the principle of utility. In order for the principle of

utility to be fulfilled, abortion has to be ruled immoral because it impinges on the baby’s way of

life. Resulting in abortion not producing the most favorable balance of benefit over harm for all

concerned, it does not follow the principle of utility.

One of Thomson’s main arguments throughout is that abortion does not constitute as

unjust killing. Although, when it violates the principle of utility, it clearly seems to be an unjust

killing. The greater interest of both individuals is not being preserved, and therefore it is unjust.

The thing that will benefit the baby the most is if it survives, and this needs to be considered

when examining the morality of abortion. The baby’s survival follows from the principle of

utility, and especially if the mother is not in any physical danger or danger to her own

well-being, abortion is immoral. We can reflect on the violinist example to see how exactly this
can come into play. If you are plugged into the violinist, and you do not really have anything to

do that will benefit you more than saving the life of the violinist, then you seem obligated to help

out the violinist. As long as the principle of utility is not being broken, you should help the

violinist for as long as possible, because it not only benefits them but in the end you might be

benefited with the knowledge that you saved a life. Or, in the end, you might not have actually

been harmed at all, which in turn shows that the violist was being helped, and you were not being

harmed. This follows the principle of Utility because it is better than the violinist not being

helped and you not being harmed. This can be seen with abortion. If it does not harm you, then

the principle of utility requires that you do what is most favorable for all involved, and in many

cases, having the baby follows this, showing that it is moral and the right thing to do.

Aside from the principle of utility, Thomson also ignores the principle of nonmaleficence.

With the principle of nonmaleficence, we should not cause any unnecessary injury or harm to

others. Therefore, if you do not need to get an abortion, you should not choose to get one. This is

ignored with Thomson’s argument regarding how abortion is not considered “unjust” killing, so

it is morally okay to do it because the baby’s right to life is not guaranteed anyways. This differs

greatly from the consequentialist view of the principle of nonmaleficence. Even if the baby is not

guaranteed the right to life, we do not have the right to impose unnecessary harm on them. It

would be immoral to do so, hence abortion in a myriad of cases would be immoral. Thomson

uses the principle of autonomy to back her argument in various areas, but this principle of

autonomy advocates exercising the right to cause injury and harm to unborn children. Typically,

it is normal for an individual’s autonomy to end when another person's rights begin, and this is

not conveyed in Thomson’s argument, which depicts an issue. People have the right to autonomy,

but when it comes to infringing on or harming other people, then they should not have the
autonomy to do so. Thomson ignores this completely, and rather just focuses on how people have

the right to autonomy. With autonomy comes restrictions, and in the case of nonmaleficence,

autonomy is required to be restricted. If one has unlimited autonomy to do whatever they desire,

then it puts other people in harm. This is not the case though, so it should not be the case when it

comes to abortion. Abortion puts unborn children in a position of unnecessary harm much of the

time and therefore does not follow the principle of nonmaleficence.

Overall, Thomson is flawed in much of her argument. She ignores the principle of utility

which should have higher importance than her argument for how the mother has no obligation to

the fetus. She initially describes, for the sake of her paper, that the fetus is a person at the

moment of conception which satisfies some issues, but aggravates others. The principle of utility

is extremely important when it comes to abortion because everyone should have the right to the

most favorable balance of benefits over harms, and this is not the case with many instances of

abortion. Aside from this, Thomson uses the principle of autonomy to defend her views, but

while doing so, ignored the principle of nonmaleficence, which is more important because it

considers not just the mother, but also the unborn child. By abiding by the principle of autonomy,

the baby is being unjustly harmed and this goes against the principle of nonmaleficence, in turn

showing abortion to be immoral.