Thomson- abortion

1) Therapeutic reasons: Reasons relating to the life and health of the pregnant woman

2) Eugenic reasons: Reasons relating to fetal abnormality

3) Humanitarian reasons: Reasons that deal with a pregnancy due to incest or rape

4) Socioeconomic reasons: Reasons relating, for example, to poverty, social stigma, or

family size

5) Personal reasons: Reasons other than any of the ones just mentioned that relate to a

woman’s preferences and projects. (Examples: devoting time to a professional career

or not wanting to be inconvenienced)

Reasons for abortion

Disputes the premise that a fetus is a person from conception onwards, she allows this premise for the sake of her argument. She argues that just because the fetus is a person, it does not automatically follow that abortion is therefore impermissible

What is Thompson’s relevant clarification at the beginning of the work? What is her main argument?

The question of where personhood starts. Even if we grant a fetus personhood, abortion can be permissible situationally

Why does Thomson reject premise of continuity from conception?

You are kidnapped and connected without your consent to a famous unconscious violinist to use your kidneys to save his life for nine months.

• The Question: While staying plugged in would be a great act of charity or kindness, you are not morally required to do so because your right to control your own body outweighs another person's right to use it to survive.

The Application: Thomson uses the analogy to argue that even if a fetus is considered a person with a right to life, a pregnant person still retains the right to bodily autonomy and to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Analogous to someone becoming pregnant by being rape

How does Thompson use the violinist situation? What is the story?

The pro-life core to this is all persons have right to life, and violinists are persons. Therefore, the violinist right o life outweighs your right to your body.

Considers argument of unconscious violinist scenario in terms of the premise that “All persons have right to life“:

Having a right to life does not automatically give the person the right to use another’s body/life support to live. The mother has right to self-defense. Critics fail to recongnize the fetus is in the woman’s body.

If mother and fetus are of equal value of “all persons have right to life“ then how can we determine who lives in the case of fatal pregnancy?

Cases of abortion are justifiable if a woman’s life is being severely endangered by her pregnancy

How does Thompson use a Tiny House analogy? What does it show in regard to abortion?

You are trapped in a tiny house with a child who is growing so rapidly that you will be crushed to death in minutes. If you do nothing, you die, and the child survives.

The Bystander vs. You: An outside observer might feel it is wrong to intervene because they would have to actively choose to kill the child to save you. However, you are not an outside observer.

• The Right to Self-Defense: Because your life is directly on the line, you are not obligated to sit back and die just because the threat is an "innocent" child.

Analogous to a pregnant woman’s life being severely endangered by her pregnancy. It argues that even if a fetus is considered an innocent person, the mother still has a moral right to defend her own life and well-being through abortion.

Tiny House Analogy

A woman has the right to defend life against threat even if death is involved. Self-defense may be justified in that the case is between the threat and the threatened.

The bystander MAY interfere to mother’s request that he perform life-saving abortion. Critics fail to recongnize that pregancny is INSIDE the body of the mom, so it is within her right to defend her own body from threat (because the use is harmful)

What does Thompson posit about the right of self-defense? How does it apply to abortion?

“The right to life” is highly problematic. Just because someone needs something to sustain their life doesn’t mean they have the right to use it/be given it UNLESS given by owner. Nor does it apply to 3rd party by allowing it (ex. Doctors in Violin example violating consent)

What does Thompson argue in regard to the mother’s life NOT being at stake in terms of “the right to life“?

The right not to be killed unjustly. if people refrain from killing violinist, then this includes NOT unplugging him. But then, does this justify the right for them to use the woman’s body for months and sacrificing freedoms. Therefore when unplugging you are not taking away right not to be killed unjustly because the violinist is performing an unjust action by forcing you to deprive your bodily autonomy.

What does Thompson argue are the bounds of “the right to life“? Apply it to the violin scenario.

PL: IF a woman knowingly participates in intercourse and gets pregnant (allows right to use someone’s body other than by invite).

If woman knowingly partakes in sex and gets pregnant, she would be depriving the fetus the right to use the body in the argument that partial responsibility = right to body. Extends to unjust killing it.

Doesn’t include rape due to consent reasoning, therefore fetus out of rape have no rights to use body.

Thomson presents the argument that fetus is a dependent, therefore the mother has responsibility to take care of it, and rejects it. What conditions is this under? How does this apply to abortion?

Burgler/Stuffy House= You open a window to air out a stuffy room, fully aware that burglars exist and that a burglar could climb in. If you even installed bars on the windows and a burglar breaks in anyway because the bars are defective, Thomson argues it is absurd to claim: "Ah, now he can stay, you've given him a right to the use of your house.”

Application: Thomson argues that voluntarily doing something (like opening a window or having sex) knowing a risk exists does not mean you have consented to the intruder's presence or waived your right to remove the

How does Thompson use the analogy of the burgler/stuffy house for the argument that a fetus is a dependent therefore the mother has a responsbility to take care of it.

The woman forfit the right to use body when knowingly participating in intercourse.

Why can’t violinist scenario apply for the argument that a fetus is a dependent therefore the mother has a responsbility to take care of it. (according to PL)

What if pregnancy lasted one house? 5 min? What if the violinist was hooked up for 1 hour? 10 mins?

May be callous/selfish, but not unjust bc fetus doesnt have right to use body in some cases.

Thompson posits there may be cases where it would be morally indecent to detach fetus at cost of his life. What does she assert about Minimal Decency?

Good Samaritan= Person who will go out of their way to help at a cost to them

Minimally decent- person who helps at low risk

Applies to Abortion: Thomson claims nobody is required to be a Good Samaritan. Still there are cases where

abortion would not even be minimally decent (ex. 7 month pregnancy terminated bc of a vacation)

Thompson distinguishes between 2 types of Samaritan. What are they and how do they apply to abortion?

Even if something is not morally permissible, there might be reasons to legally allow for this

action (autonomy, dangerous illegal abortions, crime rates etc.)

Appl: A 14-year old girl getting an illegal abortion due to rape.

Thompson’s Morality vs Legality and application to abortion