For most people think that we do owe special debts to our parents even though we have not voluntarily assumed our obligations to them. This means that of the six methods of abortion only those cases of prostaglandin chemical abortion where the woman's uterus is stimulated to contract and expel the fetus whole in which the fetus is born alive and is not decapitated or fatally damaged by the violence of the contractions, and those cases of cesarean section abortion where the fetus dies of neglect rather than by the knife, that only these cases are possibly morally permissible types of abortion.
When does a person have a right to do whatever they need to do to save their life? Such obligations, although not directly undertaken voluntarily, are necessary in any civilized culture to preserve the rights of those that cannot control what happens to them, such as a fetus.
The problem with this reasoning apart from the obvious flaw that it also justifies the killing of new born babies, toddlers, the disabled, the elderly, or anyone else who depends on the care of another for their continued existence is that it is utterly anti-human because it is completely disconnected from the notion of community, solidarity and responsibility to the other.
But in the case of morally justifying abortion rights, pregnancy is painted in the most horrific of terms. There may well be cases in which carrying the child to term requires only Minimally Decent Samaritanism of the mother, and this is a standard we must not fall below.
However, even though Thomson excepts that everyone has this right, she disagrees that that right, "does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person's body- even if one needs it for life itself" So, by analogy, Thomson would hold that pregnancies resulting from consensual sexual acts opening windows in the heat with faulty contraceptives holes in the screens can also be legitimately terminated.
Even when the parents' decision to decline necessary treatment is based on constitutional grounds, such as religious beliefs, it must yield to the State's interests, as parens patriae, in protecting the health and welfare of the child.
The obligation arises when one "understands and appreciates" the condition of the other. To some extend these are problems thought experiments which aim to elicit intuitions about what is right or wrong generally have.
But if Jane Fonda had been the one Henry could have saved, surely it would have been monstrous to refuse. When it comes to equality in the workplace with which I agree with the feminists there is no problem. But in case 5b, Fonda would be horribly unjust not to heal you.
Wilcox indicates, there are other unknown variables. She makes her points with the following illustration. In arguing an issue of life, one can only invoke issues of life to counterbalance it. She assumes, for the sake of the argument, that the fetus is a person.
Now, some will immediately try to counter this by proposing that if a couple engage in contracepted sexual relations then any pregnancy that results is forced upon the couple because their use of contraception was an attempt to opt out of pregnancyand as such they have the right to reject such pregnancies via abortion.Start studying Judith Thomson's Defense of Abortion.
Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Thomsons labels the "Extreme View" the position that a woman is morally prohibited from undergoing an abortion even when the fetus threatens her life.
Defense of Abortion Judith Jarvis Thomson. Features. Judith Jarvis Thomson (born October 4, ) is an American moralwas appointed to the faculty at MIT, where she is currently Laurence S.
Rockefeller Professor of Philosophy. The Thomsons were separated in and divorced in ; they remained colleagues until James Thomson’s death in — "Abortion", Judith J. Response to Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense for Abortion Judith Jarvis Thomson, in "A Defense of Abortion", argues that even if we grant that fetuses have a fundamental right to life, in many cases the rights of the mother override the rights of a.
A common view in the line of argument on abortion arising from Judith Jarvis Thomson’s seminal piece is that abortion is permissible because the fetus has no right to be inside the woman. 1 If the fetus has no right to be.
Judith Jarvis Thompson;s “A Defense of Abortion” The standard argument against abortion rests on the claim that the fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life. Thomson shows why this standard argument against abortion is a somewhat inadequate account of the morality of abortion.
Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion. Let us call the view that abortion is impermissible even to save the mother's life "the extreme view." I want to suggest first that it does not issue from the argument I mentioned earlier without the addition of some fairly powerful premises.Download