One of the main issues that the second wave feminists addressed was the right of women to decide if and when they want to have children. Women in the sixties and seventies protested for their reproductive rights and demanded the legal access to abortion with slogans like “my body, my choice”. Although many countries liberalized their laws concerning abortion, the debate about the moral permissibility still remains one of the most heated debates across different societies.
Judith Jarvis Thomson’s essay “A Defense of Abortion” was published in 1971 and has had a great impact on the philosophical debate on abortion and its moral permissibility. Moral philosophers who are pro- or anti-choice alike have argued about the argumentative strategy that is best to support one’s claims concerning abortion. Thomson’s essay has been critiqued for various different reasons and this papers goal is to work out how Thomson’s position could be rethought after over forty years of its first publishing. My main thesis is virtually the same as Thomson’s: abortion is not always impermissible. However, I disagree with her methodology and I argue that the details of different cases and the societal context they happen in ought to decide whether abortion is morally permissible or not. My critique is especially aimed at Thomson’s strategy to assume – for the sake of the argument – that the fetus is a person, her conception of bodily autonomy and her terminology.
In the first part of the paper I summarize Thomson’s position while focusing on the most important aspects for the following critique. In the second part, I mainly use the theories of Gina Schouten and Rosalind Hursthouse to criticize some of Thomson’s assumptions. Gina Schouten has argued (from a feminist perspective) for considering that there is a societal moral obligation for caring and protecting the most vulnerable which means that depending on the moral status of fetus’, there is an obligation to care for them. Another interesting critique can be made by questioning of the role that (bodily) autonomy plays in bioethics and how Thomson uses it to justify abortion. Rosalind Hursthouse has attacked Thomson’s violinist example for being too different from an actual pregnancy and found her terminology too imprecise.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Judith Jarvis Thomson's Position
- Abortion as Self-Defense
- The Right to Your Own Body
- The Good vs. the Minimally Decent Samaritan
- Problems with Thomson's Position
- The Moral Status of the Fetus and the Obligation to Provide Care
- Bodily Autonomy and Thomson's Terminology
- Conclusion
- References
Objectives and Key Themes
This paper critiques Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion," arguing that while abortion isn't always impermissible, Thomson's methodology needs rethinking. The paper re-examines Thomson's approach, considering societal context and individual circumstances in determining the moral permissibility of abortion. It focuses on refining the understanding of bodily autonomy and the moral status of the fetus.
- Re-evaluation of Judith Jarvis Thomson's arguments regarding abortion.
- The moral status of the fetus and its implications for abortion.
- The concept of bodily autonomy and its role in the abortion debate.
- The influence of societal context on the moral permissibility of abortion.
- Critique of Thomson's use of analogies and thought experiments.
Chapter Summaries
Introduction: This introduction sets the stage by discussing the historical context of the abortion debate, highlighting the second-wave feminist movement's emphasis on reproductive rights. It introduces Judith Jarvis Thomson's influential essay and states the paper's central thesis: abortion is not always impermissible, although the author disagrees with Thomson's methodology. The author's critique will focus on Thomson's assumptions regarding the moral status of the fetus, bodily autonomy, and the societal context surrounding abortion decisions.
1. Judith Jarvis Thomson's Position: This chapter summarizes Thomson's argument, which begins by accepting the premise that a fetus is a person from conception. Thomson then uses the violinist analogy to demonstrate that even granting personhood to the fetus doesn't automatically make abortion impermissible. The chapter examines Thomson's exploration of abortion as self-defense and her discussion of bodily autonomy, illustrating her attempts to create space for considering the permissibility of abortion despite the granted personhood of the fetus. The chapter lays the groundwork for the subsequent critique by highlighting the core tenets of Thomson's argument.
2. Problems with Thomson's Position: This chapter critiques Thomson's arguments, drawing on the work of Gina Schouten and Rosalind Hursthouse. Schouten's concept of a societal moral obligation to care for the vulnerable is introduced as a counterpoint to Thomson's emphasis on individual rights. Hursthouse's critique of the violinist analogy's disconnect from real-world pregnancies and Thomson's imprecise terminology are also discussed. This chapter challenges Thomson's assumptions, particularly her approach to bodily autonomy and the moral status of the fetus, highlighting potential shortcomings and alternative perspectives.
Keywords
Abortion, bodily autonomy, moral status of the fetus, Judith Jarvis Thomson, feminist bioethics, societal obligation, personhood, thought experiments, right to life, reproductive rights.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion"
What is the main topic of this paper?
This paper critically examines Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion," arguing that while abortion isn't always morally impermissible, Thomson's approach requires further consideration. The paper re-evaluates Thomson's arguments, incorporating societal context and individual circumstances to refine our understanding of bodily autonomy and the moral status of the fetus.
What are the key themes explored in the paper?
The paper delves into several key themes, including: a re-evaluation of Thomson's arguments on abortion; the moral status of the fetus and its implications for abortion; the concept of bodily autonomy within the abortion debate; the influence of societal context on the moral permissibility of abortion; and a critique of Thomson's use of analogies and thought experiments.
What is Judith Jarvis Thomson's position on abortion as presented in the paper?
Thomson, accepting the premise that a fetus is a person from conception, uses the famous "violinist analogy" to argue that even granting personhood to the fetus doesn't automatically make abortion impermissible. The paper summarizes her arguments regarding abortion as self-defense and her concept of bodily autonomy.
What are the main criticisms of Thomson's position presented in this paper?
The paper critiques Thomson's arguments by introducing counterpoints such as Gina Schouten's concept of a societal moral obligation to care for the vulnerable. It also discusses Rosalind Hursthouse's critique of the violinist analogy's lack of real-world applicability and Thomson's imprecise terminology. The criticisms challenge Thomson's assumptions about bodily autonomy and the moral status of the fetus.
What is the overall conclusion of the paper?
While the paper acknowledges that abortion isn't always impermissible, it ultimately argues that Thomson's methodology needs significant revision. The author suggests a more nuanced approach that considers both individual rights and societal responsibilities in determining the moral permissibility of abortion.
What are the key chapters and their summaries?
The paper includes an introduction establishing the context of the abortion debate, a chapter summarizing Thomson's position, a chapter critiquing that position, and a conclusion. Each chapter builds upon the previous one, progressively developing the author's critique of Thomson's work.
What keywords are associated with this paper?
The keywords include: Abortion, bodily autonomy, moral status of the fetus, Judith Jarvis Thomson, feminist bioethics, societal obligation, personhood, thought experiments, right to life, and reproductive rights.
Who are some of the relevant thinkers referenced in the paper?
The paper references and critiques the work of Judith Jarvis Thomson, Gina Schouten, and Rosalind Hursthouse. Their ideas are central to the discussion of bodily autonomy, the moral status of the fetus, and the broader ethical considerations surrounding abortion.
What is the intended audience for this paper?
This paper appears to be intended for an academic audience interested in bioethics, feminist philosophy, and the philosophical arguments surrounding abortion. The structured format, detailed analysis, and referencing suggest a scholarly approach.
Where can I find more information on this topic?
The paper provides a list of references for further reading. Searching for the keywords listed above in academic databases will also yield relevant results.
- Quote paper
- Isil Ceren Yildirim (Author), 2018, An Alternative Defense of Abortion. A critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson’s "A Defense of Abortion", Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/493621
