Short Paper on A Defense of Abortion by J. J. Thomson In the article A Defense of Abortion, Judith Jarvis Thomson exposes the idea that fetuses are considered persons from the moment of conception and, therefore, they have the right to life. However, Thomson argues that abortion under certain circumstances can be morally permissible. Based on these ideas Thompson implemented thought experiments such as the analogies of the violinist and the “drifting seeds”, which doesn’t really give an adequate explanation for why abortion is sometimes permissible. Thus, based on my understanding of these analogies I believe that Thomson’s arguments are not convincing and, therefore, abortion should not be permissible. Thomson explains that the fetus is a person who has the right to life.
Kant devised two different types of imperatives which allow us to make our decisions, hypothetical imperatives are the rules that we follow to attain a personal outcome or a selfish wish whereas categorical imperatives are intrinsically right. His first categorical imperative was meant to establish that humans should only act according to a law that can be universalised. ‘’Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law’’ – (Kant the moral order). The second of the imperatives is that we as humans should never use another human as a means to an end, treat them all with value. ‘’Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end’’.
I think you're pointing out an inconsistency in this discussion that is very valid. I agree entirely and this is why I do not hold that abortion should be allowed in those cases. This really demonstrates how important the question of the human rights of the child is because it compels us to certain conclusions. It removes from us the liberty of making ad hoc decisions based on our emotions. We must approach this in a disciplined way as a transcendent human rights issue.
Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society. Mill believed indivduality is what it is to be human and anything that takes away your indivuduality is wrong. Mill state in his book On Liberty “Whatever crushes indivduality is despotism.” Despostism is the idea of dictatorship so Mill is saying that anything that stops our indivduality for example religion is controlling us and not allowing us to be free, which is wrong. Althought we are free we must consider others, this means that we can use our freedom however we must make sure we are not spoiling the freedom of others. This is supported by Paul Kurtz who states humans have the right “to satisfy their tastes” but however they shold not “impose their values on others.” For example you may want to murder someone with your free will however if you go ahead and commit the crime you are negatively effecting others in society and this is wrong.
Thomson, though, thinks that reasoning in this way is misguided, or at very best is incomplete. In light of this, she begins by conceding the issue of personhood to her opponent; she assumes, for purposes of argumentation, that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. She attempts to show that even if this concession is made, abortion is morally permissible in many
In fact if we force this woman to have the surgery it could compromise the sanctity of a woman’s body. This would bring up the whole debate of abortion. Having the fetus’s rights just as important if not more than the mother’s, could say that if you have an abortion or miscarriage that you could be charged with a criminal offence. In the interest of fairness and justice, she should not be forced to have the
cannot be broken) primary precepts to make moral decisions. One of these primary precepts, “preservation of innocent life”, leads to abortion being forbidden. Natural law observes the sanctity of life thesis, considering an embryo / foetus to be a person. However, although Natural law respects the sanctity of life, it is by no means a religious theory, for it is based on objective truth. Despite Natural Law forbidding abortion, there is a doctrine of double effect that can be implemented.
I definitely don’t like the idea of an abortion but I am pro choice and I strongly feel that it is a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor. I believe that everyone is entitled to make their own choice and that you can not force your choice and beliefs on someone else just because you do not agree with
It directly opposes human rights. Abortion should not be used as a matter of contraceptive either. It can have harmful effects on the mother later in life and can leave damage to the body. It can cause a woman to have other complications during pregnancies later in life. In addition to that there are studies that prove that breast cancer is heightened in women who had an abortion earlier in life.
However, the categorical imperative represents an action as “objectively necessary in itself”[3], with no end in mind. While Kant bases morality on strictly categorical imperatives, Aristotle claims (in his Nicomachean Ethics) that the highest form of morality is found through actions which seek eudaimonia, or happiness; actions which fall under the hypothetical imperative. Kant’s categorical imperative is formulates in three different ways – the formula of universal law, the formula of the law of nature and the formula of the end in itself. The formula of universal law is based on two key concepts; universality (or the ability for one thing to apply to everyone) and “maxims”. Kant neglects to clearly define maxims, yet it is footnoted that maxims are “subjective principles of acting”[4].