Friday, December 7, 2012
In Defense of "A Defense of Abortion"
In her classic article "A Defense of Abortion," Judith Jarvis Thomson famously insists "that we grant that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception." This seems a bold move and one that is very difficult to overcome while defending abortion, but Thomson, nevertheless, presents -- at the very least -- a strong case in support of abortion rights. What are the most convincing parts of Thomson's argument? Why? Be sure to cite at least three reasons from the text of the article. Defend your reasoning in no fewer than 10 sentences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think Thomsin does a great job of defending abortion rights using vivid thought provoking examples. Take the people-seed example for one. "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 don't 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 person-plant 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. 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 won't 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." I love this example because it clearly shows and supports the fact that pregnancy caused by rape in no way should be prevented from being terminated with an abortion. You were not the one willingly choosing that pregnancy and it is ridiculous that you should have to keep the child.
ReplyDeleteHer violinist example is a great way to establish a clear picture that unplugging yourself A.K.A abortion is just and that it is your own body. You should be in control of what you do with it and what others do with it as well. Even though she states; " I am inclined to think also that we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth." her arguments still effectively portray abortion as a moral action. I for one loved her article and thought the examples kept it interesting and made it extremely
I think that Thomson is one of the most interesting authors on this topic I have read. I agree with her when it comes to the "extreme view"," Let us call the view that abortion is impermissible even to save the mother's life 'the extreme view'". I think that abortion is understandable is a case where the life of the mother is a stake. I think this is due to the fact that if the mother has the right to life as much as the baby does and it is understandable that if the mother were to die, the baby has low changes of surviving. I think this is also the case in of rape. I think her example of Kitty Genovese is very convincing, "Kitty Genovese, who, as you will remember, was murdered while thirty-eight people watched, or listed, and did nothing at all to help her". This makes me think of the important of the people who are performing the operation. Everybody talks about the mother but little attention is paid to the doctors. It is important to see their opinion on this topic. I found part of her argument rather disturbing, "It is not as if there were unborn persons drifting about the world, to whom a woman who wants a child say 'I invite you in'". I find this very disturbing because it takes something very personal and amazing and adds a rather disgust to it. The complete opposition makes me wonder who women with children feel. I know my mom loves being a mother and that she does not regard pregnancy as a disease. I makes me wonder what would occur if pregnancies were completely regarded as diseases that should be avoided.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I found some of Jarvis's metaphors a bit disconcerting and destabilizing to the argument overall, I think that her assumption that life begins at conception for the sake of her argument was very strong. Abortion is something that I strongly feel should not be trivialized by comparing it to a parasitic violinist or the like. People need to describe it for what it is, because sugar coating the fact is pointless. However, that is probably just me. For the sake of defending abortion, her arguments are probably more valid and convincing for those who are not "pro choice." Although to me they seemed somewhat droll, I know that others found them very strong.
ReplyDeleteIn particular is her assumption that life begins at conception, and that the fetus infringes upon the mothers life. I very much agree with this point. Although by having sex you accept this risk, I don't think that by having sex you are sacrificing your body to a possible pregnancy. Perhaps these rights overlap, but in this case it is the fetus who is parasitic to you. This does not mean that the fetus has no worth, but at what point does one person's rights end and another's rights begin?
As I said before, her analogies are strong at making the point she wishes to communicate, such as the boy and the chocolate or the violinist, but by restating the original problem in simpler terms, you are simply undermining it overall. Perhaps she wanted to make the article more accessible and less graphic, as abortion is both of these things. But by avoiding these issues I don't think that much is accomplished, because at some point or another the topic much be broached in its entirety. Overall, however, I do agree with Jarvis. I think that her article does a great job and making her point for the articles sake because it speaks to an audience on both sides of the aisle, even if I don't agree with her means.
Thompson's article is the most interesting one we've read in my opinion because she attacks the abortion issue at a lot of different angles. At first, I wasn't completely sure what her opinion was (until she stated "my opinion is...") because she did not shame either side from the get go. Her example about a person being trapped in a house with a growing child was particularly interesting because I had never actually thought of abortion as self defense against a supposed innocent entity. A woman feeling like the house is sometimes forgot that she too is a person, and I think Thompson conveyed that well. Another analogy I found intriguing was the just/unjust killing comparison of the two boys and the box of chocolates. It helped me understand the difference between her definitions of what it means to let someone die and to purposefully kill. The other analogy that is close to that argument is the one of the two parents understanding their lack of "special responsibility" to keep a child if they do not initially want one.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to see the arguments from those angles. They get her point across in the way that she tries to show every side she can. The fact that she often contradicts herself shows she's thinking about all the possibilities and she is not trying to push a specific side.
I agree with Aldo and how he said that this was one of the more interesting articles we have read. Personally, I think that the mom has more right to life than the fetus and i don't know why i think that but I just do. I also think that the example that she brings up with the lady getting killed while everyone was just watching and not doing anything. Thompson is a little unclear about her view and that sort of confused me while reading the article, but eventually I figure it out. The points she makes throughout her article raise interesting points to me. One is the one I already talked about with the lady getting killed. Some of the things she compares are very intriguing and I like some of the analogies she makes.
ReplyDeleteWhether she believes it or just seeks to be provocative and convincing, Thomson makes a very wise argumentative choice when she concedes fetal personhood for the sake of the argument, as so many of the editorials we've read hinge heavily on whether a fetus can be considered a person. With this premise, Thomson is free to effectively and persuasively argue on behalf of abortion with the full attention of readers from both pro-life AND pro-choice camps. Best of all, IMMEDIATELY after this concession she incredibly sums up the pro-life stance: "Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. [...] [S]urely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body... So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed" (242). None of the other articles we've read so effectively capture the attention of and address the views of the opposition. Thomson creates metaphors well within the pro-life proposal of abortion ethics.
ReplyDeleteTo the same effect, I appreciate that the metaphor for a fetus is not a failure, filled to the sad brow with self-pity after years of malnourishment, poverty, and feelings of guilt for ruining a reluctant mother's body, but rather "[a] famous unconscious violinist" (242). This is so fair to the pro-life argument, because it addresses the concept of potential life that... I forget which article mentioned. The dependent being in Thomson's scenario is already successful and presumably has already reached its full potential, so no argument can be made that it would be in the interest of the fetus/violinist to pursue an abortion. This keeps the focus of the argument on a mother's right to choose.
I also like how Thomson elaborates on the right to life. She explains that everyone has the right to live, but at the same time, no one is morally obligated to save anyone else's life. As one has the right to live at the expense of no one else, so does one have the right not to save a life. Her example with Henry Fonda illustrates this masterfully: "If I am sick unto death, and the only thing that will save my life is the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand on my fevered brow, then all the same, I have no right to be given the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand on my fevered brow" (247). This interestingly illuminated her earlier scenario wherein a woman's health is very much at stake, and aborting/unplugging the fetus/violinist "would be directly killing the child, whereas doing nothing would not be killing the mother, but only letting her die" (243-4).
Thomson, none of the less, has a very compelling argument. She bring up many interesting examples of how she sees abortion. Some including the violinist example, the house example, the Henry Fonda example...etc. We can see she brings a unique and creative perspective on the abortion debate. Not only are her examples exclusive and more understanding, it makes us readers able to understand her debate and side of things more clearly. One evoking paragraph I personally liked was the one about the 3rd perspective. She says on page 245, “ [third person speaking] There’s nothing we can do for you. We cannot choose between your life and his, we cannot be the ones to decide who is to live, we cannot intervene.” I cannot understand why, but this passage makes me very emotional. Imagine saying that to a friend. It must be super hard. But, yes, Thomson makes a clear and concise argument.
ReplyDeleteThompson makes interesting points regarding the rights of a fetus and a pregnant woman, but what most interests me about her arguments is that she points out a basic flaw in pro-life advocates’ thinking: even if the fetus is a person, a law guaranteeing it’s life would be inconsistent with current legal philosophy.
ReplyDeleteIn discussing the right to life, Thompson poses a question that I never considered: does anyone have the right to the bare minimum they need for survival? She uses the image of “the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on her fevered brow” (247) as an exaggerated example, but I think it makes her point tangible. Nobody can argue that he must, by law, fly to touch her forehead. I’m sure most people would say that he should, that he would be cruel and heartless not to. I never think about it this way, but cruelty and heartlessness are not illegal. She basically says that nobody has the right to be treated compassionately or helped to survive, which I guess is technically true.
The point she makes about the Good Samaritan versus the Minimally Decent Samaritan also goes along with that rational. She points out that a woman who becomes involuntarily pregnant and chooses to keep that baby is inconveniencing herself to help another, and acting as a Good Samaritan. She goes on to say that “in no state in this country is any man even required to be a Minimally Decent Samaritan to any person” (253). It is not illegal to stand by and watch someone die. This point struck me because in all my struggles in whether abortion is morally right or wrong, I never considered the fact that, in the eyes of the law, the answer to that question doesn’t really matter.
Her example about the boy who refuses to share his chocolates drives in the same point: there is no law against selfishness.
Thomson’s assumption of fetal personhood vaults her argument forward before it even fully begins. The ceaseless floundering about in regards to whether a fetus is or is not human simply does not aid either side of the dispute given that the answer isn’t one that can be feasibly argued. After however many articles we’ve read that flog that horse for a good few pages before the meat of the piece, the brevity of Thomson’s “personhood” introduction was refreshing, to say the least.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I am in favor of the use of analogies and metaphors to temporarily detach the reader from the more glaring truth of abortion so as to formulate an opinion without preconceived notions. For the most part, I thought Thomson provided some valuable analogies. They added up, however, and became not only tiresome, but inconsistent with the aspects of abortion to which they were intended to correlate. For example, Thomson writes “but you have to stay where you are all the same, because unplugging you would be directly killing an innocent violinist.” She displays here a worrisome misunderstanding of one of the main thrusts of the pro-life argument – the innocence of an unborn child – by comparing the fetus to the helpless subject of her violinist analogy. The fetus represents a completely blank slate, guiltlessness in its purest form. Another article we’ve read says something along the lines of “surely dependence and innocence is not a crime.” The violinist, on the other hand, is a creature that has lived and breathed, committed sin, had the opportunity to age. Pro-life posters do not depict middle-aged men with weathered faces and musical inclinations, but sweet, cherubic infants with grins and captions that read “Would You Kill Me, Mama?” As we’ve discussed in class, the implications and emotions that accompany “cuteness” and “innocence” are among the most powerful, and it’s an unfortunate truth that the pro-life movement would lose a lot of its fire were the subjects not innocuous infants. By implying that an adult, however honorable, is on a remotely similar plane as a baby, Thomson in many ways overlooks a large part of why the anti-abortion argument is so evocative. I don’t mean to say that pro-lifers defend the rights of fetuses merely because they’re “cute.” The faultlessness of unborn children, however, is an imperative detail that must be given the appropriate weight. Pro-lifers do not strive to protect the blemished, just those that display the potential for absolute decency.
For the most part, I enjoyed Thomson’s article and the examples she presented. The house example focused on a point that, as others have mentioned, often gets overlooked: “the mother owns the house” (245). I think that point alone aids to her argument on self-defense, but I wish it had come sooner. By building up to her finished example, Thomson makes me question her logic along the way. At the top of the page, Thompson says that you “do not have to wait passively while it [the child] crushes you to death.” While this is true, Thompson should note that the child itself can’t engage in self-defense. We have laws protecting those who cannot protect themselves, and while I’m not exactly versed in these, I know that they exist. Obviously a person is still entitled to use self-defense, but the issues surrounding its use become murky in such a situation. But once Thomson specified that the mother owned the house, I went along with her, and her argument seemed perfectly valid.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed her burglar example, though I think she set herself up for some criticism there. Her use of the phrase “burglars burgle” is ridiculous; it makes you chuckle at a very serious topic. Plus, I think there are definitely better metaphors out there. On that note, while I appreciate her attempt to simplify a complex topic, I think she also went overboard with the Henry Fonda example. Sure, it’s a bit funny—but it minimizes the relationship a woman has with that thing that’s literally right inside her body. I know I’m being very literal again, but I think there’s a line when discussing this topic and Thomson is crossing it. She makes some great points—“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….you are….self-centered and callous, indecent in fact, but not unjust”—but she could just as easily make them with less outrageous, even more serious, examples (251).
Though I'm still not sure whether or not I agree with Thomson's argument, I think it's very convincing. I find myself being very tempted towards it. I think that often in the anti abortion/pro abortion argument people do tend to focus too much if the fetus is a person or not, as opposed to establishing reasons regardless of that to justify it. I think her examples really help to strengthen her arguments, especially with the violinist, using "you" as plugged into the violinist, as opposed to just someone. I think two of the strongest arguments, though, are the burglar example: "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 she's 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.'" and the people seeds example: "People seeds drift about the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with mesh screens,the very best you can buy." I think these two examples make a strong argument for the rights of the woman to get an abortion if she was not planning on having a baby and she took steps to avoid that. Just as you shouldn't have to accept the people seeds if one takes root even through your mesh screen, or accept a burglar that got in through a defect in the bars of the window, a woman shouldn't have to have a pregnancy she didn't want and tried to plan against. And I think she takes an interesting look at the position of a third party and their rights and what their obligation is. I think many parts of Thomson's argument is convincing and others less so.
ReplyDelete"Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being," Thompson starts off her article by making the main argument against her seem invalid. By assuming this, she says that even if it is true, is does not make abortion immoral. "Find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist." She made another point seemingly in support of anti abortion views here, because there are quite a few people who would choose to let the violinist live. But this example also points out flaws within the arguments against abortion here. Another good point she made was when she said "There may well be cases in which carrying the child to term requires only Minimally Decent Samaritanism..." I found it interesting that she said that in some cases women should still feel morally obliged to let the fetus live because of certain circumstances. For the most part I agreed with Thompsons article and found most of her arguments to be convincing.
ReplyDelete