Organizational Information

Reading for next time:

James Rachelss Active and Passive
Euthanasia again

Ungraded Assignment

Second Exam:
Mean: 81.23
Range: 39-99

Review of Thomsons A Defense

of Abortion
Thomsons goals:

1.

2.

To challenge some arguments for the moral impermissibility

of abortion.
To argue for the moral permissibility of abortion in a number
of cases.

The Main Argument for the Moral Impermissibility of Abortion

1.

2.
3.

If a fetus has a right to life, then it is morally impermissible to

kill a fetus.
A fetus has a right to life.
Therefore, it is morally impermissible to kill a fetus. 1,2 MP

Abortion

The Famous Violinist Case

The Violinist Case is meant to establish two

things:
1.

2.

Abortion in the case of rape is morally

permissible.
The first premise of the Main Argument for the
Moral Impermissibility of Abortion is false.

Abortion

The Extreme View:

Abortion is impermissible in all (non-rape) cases, even if abortion

is necessary to save the life of the mother.

The Growing Baby Argument Against the Extreme View

The Slightly Less Extreme View

Abortion is morally impermissible except in rape cases and in

cases in which the mother performs an abortion on herself in order
to save her own life.

The Coat Argument Against the Slightly Less Extreme

View

Abortion

What about cases in which the mothers life is not at

stake?

Here it may seem that the argument against abortion is

stronger.

Where the mothers life is not at stake, the argument I

mentioned at the outset seems to have a much stronger pull.
Everyone has a right to life, so the unborn person has a right to
life. And isnt the childs right to life weightier than anything other
than the mothers own right to life, which she might put forward
as ground for an abortion?

Abortion

This argument treats the right to life as if it were

unproblematic. It is not, and this seems to me to be
precisely the source of the mistake.

Right To Life Thesis #1:

The right to life is the right to be given the bare minimum one
needs for continued life.

Thomson concedes that people do have the right to life,

but she argues against Right To Life Thesis #1.

Abortion
Henry Fonda Argument Against Right To Life Thesis #1
1.

2.

3.

If Right To Life Thesis #1 is true, then Thomson has a

right that Henry Fonda touch her fevered brow.
It is not the case that Thomson has a right that Henry
Fonda touch her fevered brow.
Therefore, it is not the case that Right To Life Thesis
#1 is true. 1,2 MT

Abortion

Story: Babys Brains

Babys Brains Argument Against Right To Life Thesis #1

1.

2.

3.

If Right To Life Thesis #1 is true, then I have a

right to eat the brain of a newborn baby.
It is not the case that I have a right to eat the
brain of a newborn baby.
Therefore, it is not the case that Right To Life
Thesis #1 is true. 1,2 MT

Abortion

Right to Life Thesis #2

Your having the right to life means that it is morally impermissible

for other people to kill you.

But if unplugging yourself from the violinist would be

killing him, then Right to Life Thesis #2 is false, because,
so argues Thomson, it is morally permissible to unplug
oneself from the violinist.

Abortion
The Violinist Argument Against Right To Life Thesis #2
1.

2.

3.

If Right To Life Thesis #2 is true, then it is morally

impermissible to unplug oneself from the violinist.
It is not the case that it is morally impermissible to
unplug from the violinist.
Therefore, it is not the case that Right To Life Thesis
#2 is true. 1,2 MT

Abortion

Right To Life Thesis #3

Your having the right to life means that it is morally impermissible

for other people to unjustly kill you.

Right To Life Thesis #3 may be correct, but if it is correct,

then claiming that a fetus has a right to life is not enough
to show that it is morally impermissible to kill it.

What must be shown is that killing it is unjust.

Thomson claims that opponents of abortion have not done

enough to show that the killing of a fetus would be unjust.

Abortion

But if [Right To Life Thesis #3] is

accepted, the gap in the argument against
abortion stares us plainly in the face: it is
by no means enough to show that the
fetus is a person, and to remind us that all
persons have a right to life--we need to be
shown also that killing the fetus violates its
right to life, i.e., that abortion is unjust
killing. And is it?

Abortion

Abortion might be unjust killing if the woman somehow

gave the fetus her permission to the use of her body.

But women certainly dont give fetuses permission to use

their bodies.
This clearly isnt the case in rape.
But it also seems not to be the case in instances of normal
pregnancies.
It is not as if there are unborn persons drifting about the
world, to whom a woman who wants a child says I invite
you in.

Abortion

But it might be argued that there are other ways one can have
acquired a right to the use of another persons body than by
having been invited to use it by that person. Suppose a woman
voluntarily indulges in in intercourse, knowing of the chance it will
issue in pregnancy, and then she does become pregnant; is she
not in part responsible for the presence, in fact the very
existence, of the unborn person inside? No doubt she did not
invite it in. But doesnt her partial responsibility for its being there
give it a right to the use of her body? If so, then her aborting it
would be depriving it of what it does have a right to, and thus
would be doing it an injustice.

Abortion

The proponent of this line of reasoning is

employing the following principle:

Rightful Use Principle:

If a person, P, does something knowing that if she does it, it

may have the consequence that someone, S, will come to
rely on something owned by P and Ps doing it does, in fact,
have that consequence, then S has a right to that thing.

Thomson argues against the Rightful Use

Principle.

Abortion

Story: The Burglar

If the room is stuffy and I therefore open a window to air it, and
a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, Ah, now he can
stay, shes given him a right to the use of her house--for she is
partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily
done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are
such things as burglars, and burglars burgle. It would be still
more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my
windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a
burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains
equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but
an innocent person who blunders or falls in.

Abortion
The Burglar Argument Against the Rightful Use Principle
1.

2.

3.

If the Rightful Use Principle is true, then the burglar

has a right to the use of the house.
It is not the case that the burglar has a right to the use
of the house.
Therefore, it is not the case that the Rightful Use
Principle is true. 1,2 MT

Abortion

Story: The People Seeds

Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the

air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in
and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You dont want
children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the
very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very,
very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is
defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the personplant who now develops have a right to the use of your house?
Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your
windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture,
and you knew that screens were sometimes defective.

Abortion
The People Seeds Argument Against the Rightful Use Principle
1.

2.

3.

If the Rightful Use Principle is true, then

the people-plants have a right to the use
of the house.
It is not the case that the people-plants
have a right to the use of the house.
Therefore, it is not the case that the
Rightful Use Principle is true. 1,2 MT

Abortion

Someone may argue that you are responsible for its

rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because
after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors
and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this
wont do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a
pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or
anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!)
army.

Abortion

Crucial Conclusion:

It seems to me that the argument we are looking at can

establish that there are some cases in which the unborn person
has a right to the use of its mothers body, and therefore some
cases in which abortion is unjust killing. There is room for much
discussion and argument as to precisely which, if any. But I think
we should sidestep this issue and leave it open, for at any rate
the argument certainly does not establish that all abortion is
unjust killing.

Abortion

Thomson thinks that in some cases performing an

abortion is morally impermissible.

If pregnancy only lasted an hour and giving birth would not

inconvenience you at all.

Even in such a case, though, Thomson would say that

the fetus doesnt have a right to your body--even for one
hour. But it would, nevertheless, be morally
impermissible not to let it use your body for that hour.

For Thomson, that it would be wrong not to let the fetus use your
body in this case does not mean that the fetus has a right to use
it.

Abortion

So my own view is that even though you ought to let the

violinist use your kidneys for the one hour he needs, we
should not conclude that he has a right to do so--we
should say that if you refuse, you areself-centered and
callous, indecent in fact, but not unjust. And similarly,
that even supposing a case in which a woman pregnant
due to rape ought to allow the unborn person to use her
body for the hour he needs, we should not conclude that
he has a right to do so; we should conclude that she is
self-centered, callous, indecent, but not unjust, if she
refuses. The complaints are no less grave; they are just
different.

Abortion

One might argue that a pregnant woman must allow the fetus to
use her body because she is the mother of the child and parents
are responsible for their children in ways that they are not for
strangers, like violinists.

But, replies Thomson, though this may be true, it can only be

true of the mother that she has responsibility for her child only if
at some point she assumed that responsibility.

And clearly in the case of rape, and in the case of a couple that has
taken precautions not to have a child, at no point has the mother
assumed such a responsibility.

Abortion

Thomson notes that her argument may

not be satisfactory to all proponents of
the moral permissibility of abortion:
1.

2.

Her argument does not have the conclusion

that abortion is always morally permissible.
Her argument is not for the conclusion that
the mother has a right to secure the death of
the fetus.

Abortion

It is to confuse these two things in that up to a certain point in the life of the
fetus it is not able to survive outside the mothers body; hence removing from
her body guarantees its death. But they are importantly different. I have
argued that you are not morally required to spend nine months in bed
sustaining the life of that violinist; but to say this is by no means to say that if,
when you unplug yourself there is a miracle and he survives, you then have a
right to turn around and slit his throat. You may detach yourself even if this
costs him his life; you have no right to be guaranteed his death by some other
means, if unplugging yourself does not kill him. There are some people who
will be dissatisfied by this feature of my argument. A woman may be utterly
devastated by the thought of a child, a bit of herself, put out for adoption and
never seen or heard of again. She may therefore want not merely that the
child be detached from her, but more, that it die. Some opponents of abortion
are inclined to regard this as beneath contempt--thereby showing insensitivity
to what is surely a powerful source of despair. All the same, I agree that the
desire for the childs death is not one which anybody may gratify, should it turn
out to be possible to detach the child alive.