Complex Abortions

Omar Melgoza-Cortes

Word count: 2,378 Mathew Braich Section: Friday 9-9:50am WLH 2112 Philosophy 27: Ethics and Society Samuel C. Rickless

Thomson crucial claim on Defense of Abortion is that a fetus should not be considered a human even from the moment of conception, however even though she denounces the idea that a fetus is a human, she actually articulates her point of view by establishing the fact that a fetus is a person (pg 48). Thomson follows this course of action in order to criticize and demonstrate how the typical anti-abortion premise is based on a fallacy. Thomson shows with great consideration that abortion in certain cases abortion is morally permissible. To show that abortion is morally permissible in certain occasions, Thomson used several of examples to illustrate her point of view. All of the examples provided are hypothetical cases where one has to imagine oneself in a critical situation. As in the example of the famous violinist where, Thomson asks us to imagine ourselves being kidnapped by the Society of Music lovers, then used as means to provided medical relief to an unconscious violinist (pg48-49). Our kidneys in this situation are being used to alleviate a disease that the famous violinist has. We are the perfect blood match for the violinist, only problem is that we were put there against our will and the duration of the procedure is nine months. If we disconnect ourselves from the violinist, he will die. The violinist in this situation depicted is clearly innocent, as he had nothing to do with the kidnapping. Now we must consider then the violinist right to life. He is unconscious so therefore he cannot voice his opinion in the matter. Since Thomson establishes on her argument a fetus is a person as well then, the same right would apply to it. If a fetus cannot voice its opinion on the matter is it right for us to choose whether it lives or dies? Thomson in a sense says no, and gives a clear point in this situation with the following example; If we were sick to death, and the only remedy we had to survive was the touch of Henry Fondas hand on our forehead, would it be his duty to save you?(pg 61) We simply cannot force Fonda to do this, it would be nice of him to

travel wherever he is and save our life, but he does not violate any right to life if he chooses otherwise. Same premise would therefore apply to the situation with the violinist. If we so choose to unplug ourselves from him, we do not violate any of his rights, as it is our right to refuse him the use of our kidneys. Which therefore relates back to what Thomson initially wanted to show that a fetus does not have a right to use the mothers body to grow. It would nice of the mother to allow the fetus to grow into a human being but it is not a moral obligation given the case if she never allowed the fetus permission to use her body. However Thomsons perspective and examples are broad, so certain cases like Janes case are not clear whether abortion is morally permissible or not. Janes case can be underlined into the four following subjects: 1) Jane had voluntary and unprotected sex, because condom was unavailable 2) Jane chose to carry the fetus to term. 3) After second trimester her health becomes an issue, however the health is issue is not fatal. 4) She ponders the idea of abortion. An abortion that is in a sense letting the fetus die. Thomson could see this case in many perspectives, so it would be best to clarify each of the four points in order to show most accurately what Thomson would agree on. On the first point Thomson could argue that she did not grant the fetus the right to life, because Jane was not planning on getting pregnant. Janes husband had been using condoms almost every time and on just one occasion they did not use any form of contraceptive. Thomson would state that the fetus still has no right to use the mothers body due to her example of the stuffy room. Suppose we are in a stuffy room where I open a window to let air in, and in doing so a burglar comes in, it would be absurd to say that he can stay, or that I have given him the right to use my home (pg

58). Therefore Jane would be allowed to have abortion, as she never invited the fetus inside her. One could go further and point out Thomson example of the people seeds. Where even though people could take careful precaution to avoid the people seeds from entering and rooting in their houses, accidents can still happen but just because they do, it does not obligate the victim to take responsibility (pg 59). Thomson clearly states that despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and screens that were sometimes defective(pg 59) it still does not entitle the person plant to the right to use your house. Which relates to Thomsons point of view that even a right to life does not guarantee having a right [to use] another persons body-even if one needs it for life itself(pg 57). This however may seem contradictory to the second point in Janes case, as she later did later choose to carry the fetus to term. Janes decision to carry the fetus could be considered an act of charity and not justice. Thomson in this position could explain the Good Samaritan example where nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive(pg 65). As justice does not require anyone to ruin their body for anyone, therefore the fetus would not have any right to Janes body and Jane would not be doing any injustice to it. Janes decision could also have been conditional to her health, as she might have chosen otherwise if she knew health complications would arise. For example if someone decides to meet a person at a certain time for a date, they would follow with their promise as long as everything goes according to plan. If an accident happens such as an earthquake, the recipient would understand of the unfortunate event. Jane had no idea she would develop hypertension after her

second-trimester so she does retain the right to abort, in fear of her safety regardless of the fact if its fatal or not. For the third point in Janes situation is unclear, as Thomson does not address a non-fatal case, only cases where life is at a balance does Thomson emphasize where abortion would be permissible. Jane could allow the fetus to live, but at the cost of her health, the question then arises whose life is more valuable? Thomson renewed violinist example can demonstrate that it is permissible to choose your life over another in some cases. Suppose now that a doctor informs you while you are attached to the violinist that your kidneys over time will perish through the procedure thus causing your long-term problems later on in your future. However if we choose to stay and go through the procedure then the violinist will be fully cured of his disease and live on. Thomson does not agree with this, as we owe nothing to the violinist from the start (pg 55, 61). We could be good Samaritans and provide the medical relief but there is no law that requires doing so. As in this case our life is at risk, and our action to unplug ourselves would merely be an action of self-defense, and not an injustice. So Janes case could be considered a case of selfdefense in a way, as she is merely trying to protect her health form a long-term risk. To show this point better Thomson also includes another example to illustrate a situation of self-defense. Thomson asks us to image ourselves in a tiny house with a growing baby. The child growth is exponential and if we do nothing his growth will crush us against the walls of the house (pg 52). If Janes case were serious then Thomson would say it is morally permissible to allow abortion, as you dont owe anyone your body. However even though Jane case is not fatal, Thomson examples can still apply to her situation. For the fact that she initially did not give permission in the first place as stated in point one, and her health is at risk, which does not entitle her to forgo such a large sacrifice. Jane would not be doing an injustice, as she would only be depriving the

fetus the right to her body, which the fetus had no right to it from the start. Some objections to Thomsons argument are that his examples are broad and very loosely tied with abortion. In the case of the violinist one would be unplugging himself and letting the person die, which would make the action morally permissible. Abortion in Janes case would also be the same, as her abortion would be letting the fetus die. Thus granting her action to be morally permissible in Thomsons point of view, as the action would be more of unplugging ourselves from the violinist rather than actively killing someone. Also Thomsons example of Henry Fonda could illustrate that the fetus is dependent on the mother and therefore grants the mother the decision to abort or not. However in anti-abortions would argue that a mother is actively killing the fetus and not letting it die when it comes to abortion. Examples for abortion therefore needed to be more specific. Most of Thomsons examples are viewed in extreme cases where the mother life is at hand or in cases of rape. However overall Thomsons perspective is that a fetus is not a human, it has no right and therefore cannot claim the mothers body. With the example of Boy with a box of chocolates Thomson clarifies that in the end it is still up to the bearer of the object that retains the whole right to deny or share his/her property. So in conclusion Thomson would think that Janes abortion would be morally permissible. Considering Thomson argument I would agree that Janes action to abort would be morally permissible, as the fetus has no right to the mothers body. I state this by taking consideration the violinist example proposed by Thomson. In the case where we unplug ourselves from the violinist even though it may cause his death and his right to life, the action would still be morally permissible. Thomson states that the action of unplugging from the violinist did not violate his right to life just deprived him of the use of your body (pg 61) which he has no right to. If I allowed him to use my kidneys, it will be out of the kindness, but it

wouldnt be something he could claim. The same concept would then be applied to Janes case, as the abortion would not violate the fetuss right to life but merely deprive it of the use of Janes body, which the fetus has no right to it. Thus abortion does not violate her moral obligation, if Jane does decide to keep the fetus to term then her actions would be more of a Good Samaritan who surpassed her obligations (pg 63-64). Another example that shows that the fetus has no right to Janes body is the example of the boy with chocolates. The idea here is simple, the boys chocolates belong to him, and therefore he has a right to them. If the boy decides not to share his chocolates with his little brother then his actions would be shellfish or callous, but he would not be doing an injustice towards his brother as the chocolates belong to him. The boy has no moral obligation to give away his chocolates. Same concept can be applied to the violinist example; if the violinist would only require the use of my kidneys for just an hour, my refusal to allow him to use them would just be morally indecent of me but it would not be an injustice to him. After all the request is simple and effortless in some aspects, however the kidneys still belong to me, and he has no right to them. Which brings me back to Janes case, it would be nice of her to carry the fetus to term, but it is not a moral obligation to do so if she chooses not to. As shown in the example of Henry Fonda, it would be nice of him to travel and save my life, but his action will be that of charity, and not justice, as Fonda does not owe me anything. Anti-abortion followers could argue that in Janes case it is morally impermissible to abort because her life is not in danger and she did decide to carry the fetus to term, thus giving the right to fetus to use the mothers body. However Janes action can be seen as conditional as stated before, so deciding to carry the fetus to term would not justify the use of her body. As her decision is more of an implicit promise to a thing that is not sentient, therefore not considered to be a human being. In the examples given by Thomson that included self-defense none of them

stated or implied that the mother or person in the situation had given initial consent. In the example of the growing baby, we found ourselves simply confronted in life or death situation. We never invited the child in the house nor did we seek to be put there, as illustrated in the violinist case where we were kidnapped. Janes life may not be in grave danger, but the fact remains that her health is still at risk and justice does not require anyone to sacrifice huge aspects of their life for another, and if no injustice is being done, then the fetus has no right to the mothers body. Therefore in conclusion Janes decision to abort would be morally permissible.

Bibliography

A Defense of Abortion Judith Jarvis Thomson Philosophy & Public Affairs , Vol. 1, No. 1 (Autumn, 1971), pp. 47-66 Published by: Blackwell Publishing Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265091