1

With reference to her examples, does Thomson make a plausible case

for abortion?

The moral argument surrounding abortion has been becoming more and more relevant to todays
society, as we become more capable of detecting and terminating pregnancy.

The topic of abortion takes place within a larger discussion of womens rights, and theres been a
recent push for the reproductive rights and right to bodily autonomy for women and other people
with uteruses.

yay trans-inclusivity

2
Thomson, using various analogical aids, some fucken weird ones argues for a persons right to
abortion, and therefore their right to bodily autonomy. From pregnancy due to rape, to accidental
pregnancy, Thomson describes in clear cut is it clear tho terms the morality surrounding abortion.
Thomsons main example that she uses is a person who has unknowingly and without their consent
been connected to another person (in this case a violinist) that uses their kidneys to be kept alive.
but literally how do they do some Frankenstein conjoined twins shit and sew their tubes together
idgi Im stuck on this point In the same way that a pregnant womans body could be being used by
the innocent foetus without her consent, the victim has been attached to an innocent person. The
innocence of the violinist is vital to this example, as many who are against the use of abortion
believe that the foetus, as an innocent person, does not deserve to be killed. The words person
and killed are used loosely, as their use in terms of the pregnancy and abortion debate is arguably
well yeah it is just incorrect tbh incorrect, and these clarifications are important when determining
the morality of abortion, and potentially when deciding the legality of it too.
Arguably the biggest moral issue encountered when discussing abortion is the problem of
peoples right to life. Perhaps the most widely agreed moral fact is that innocent people do not
deserve to be killed. To people who are anti abortion, this means that the termination of a pregnancy
is immoral due to the ending of the foetus life. = these people do not understand how science In
these supposedly simple terms, it does seem that there is a moral case against the use of abortion;
you make a cute devils advocate because ///if/// the foetus can be considered a person, then it would
be unjust to kill it. However, as Thomson points out, the problem is not so simple:
If directly killing an innocent person is murder, and thus is impermissible, then the
mothers directly killing the innocent person inside her is murder and thus is
impermissible. But it cannot seriously be thought to be murder if the mother

3
performs an abortion on herself to save her life. It cannot be said that she must
refrain, that she must sit passively waiting for her death.1

The concept here is that between two persons, one must die for the other to survive.

It is neither persons fault, merely an unfortunate fact. It would surely be permissible for one of the
persons to act in self defence to save their own life, wait weve gone from babies to pistols at dawn
plis what as each persons right to life is equal, meaning that every person has the right to protect
their own life at the cost of anothers. Because of this, there seems to be a distinct difference
between a good action and a just action. A good action would be the pregnant person saving the
child regardless of her own life, as it shows a kind of respect for others far beyond that which is
expected of an average person. A just action would be for the pregnant person to protect her own
1 J. J. Thomson (1971) A defence of abortion, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1), 47-66, p. 51-52.

4
life at the denial of the foetuss life. This is all under the premise that a foetus can be considered a
person from conception, which is not necessarily true but used for the sake of discussing the anti
abortionist view.
Thomsons violinist can be used as an example to help visualise the concept of self defence
in terms of abortion:

There you are, in bed with the violinist, cheeeeeeky and the director of the hospital says
to you, Its all most distressing, and I deeply sympathise, but you see this is putting an
additional strain on your kidneys, and youll be dead within the month. But you have to
stay where you are all the same. Because unplugging you would be directly killing an
innocent violinist, and thats murder, and thats impermissible.2 theyd both??
die???? I uh
oh
oh right
this bit makes more sense than the other bit
but Im still imagining like

It seems that most people would reject this situation,

and would indeed unplug themselves. It is not their
moral duty to keep this violinist alive. also who had the fuCKING IDEA OF SWEING THEM
TOGHETER IN THE FIRST PLACE JESUS CHRIST This seems to be a question of bodily
autonomy. For example, if a person, The Queen perhaps, well I hope this doesnt happen tbh were
2 Thomson, A Defense of Abortion, p. 52.

5
to need a lung transplant and the only person whose lungs were suitable was you, but the surgery
would save The Queen and kill you, you are at perfect liberty to say no. Not only that, but if it were
a kidney transplant, and you were able to survive the surgery, as would The Queen, you are still at
liberty, by law (and by extension many persons sense of morality well done for shoving morality
back in here), to say no for your own reasons. The only people this does not apply to by law are
pregnant people. Therefore, particularly in a case where the pregnant persons life is in danger, the
pregnant person has no moral obligation to refrain from an abortion, as this action is not expected of
any other person in a similar situation. In Thomsons words, if anything in this world is true, it is
that you do not commit murder, you do not do what is impermissible, if you reach around to your
back and unplug yourself from that violinist to save your life.3
One of the more common anti abortion(ist) ?? arguments, according to Thomson, is if ones
only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one must prefer letting
the person die, and thus an abortion may not be performed.4 (This argument seems to assume that
the active killing (if this word may be used in conjunction with that of abortion) of a person is
worse than simply allowing someone to die.) can u condense this sentence its a wee bit lawng like
my dick This type of argument states that no person has the right to take away a persons right to
life and preservation of other life is secondary. and this one put them in the same sentence its kinda
the same thing idk its muchas wordy are u Charles dickens However, it could be argued that a right
to life and a right to preservation of life are equal and, actually, very similar. Thomsons example
used to illustrate this problem is as follows:

Suppose you find yourself trapped in a tiny house with a growing child. I mean a very
tiny house, and a rapidly growing child you are already up against the wall of the
3 Thomson, A Defense of Abortion, p. 52.
4 Thomson, A Defense of Abortion, p. 51.

6
house and in a few minutes you'll be crushed to death. The child on the other hand wont
be crushed to death; if nothing is done to stop him from growing hell be hurt, but in the
end hell simply burst open the house and walk out a free man. Now I could well
understand it if a bystander were to say, Theres 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.5

Many people are represented here by the bystander (particularly people who are unable to get
pregnant), and it does seem that the decision is not theirs to make. nd it isnt?? their decision???
they are bystander and can shove opinion up dickhole I am being unprofessional sorry However,
(many people put in that particular situation of imminent death by rapidly growing child) weve all
been there would employ at least some kind of self defence. this is some alice in wonderland shit

Not only this, but the pregnant persons body, represented by the house, actually belongs to the
person whos life is in danger, as if the house is not just, as Thomson says, by an unfortunate
mistake, been rented to both [the adult and child]'6 but actually has been invaded in some way by
5 Thomson, A Defence of Abortion, p. 52.
6 Thomson, A Defence of Abortion, p. 52.

7
the child. This only furthers the legitimacy of the pregnant persons self defence hmmmm u keep
saying self defence idk why that phrase isnt quite sitting comfortably let me think and come back
to it bc u say earlier that the foetus is considered innocent so like its a passive invasion idk its cells
doing what theyre meant to do which is divide n grow but its like a tumour its not inherently
malevolent its just the effects it has, like a tumour on its own isnt evil its just the effect it has on
someones life idk Im silly via the process of abortion. Because of all this, the original statement
if ones only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one must prefer
letting the person die, and thus an abortion may not be performed is shown to be wrong as the
options are not available to a bystander, but in fact are available uniquely to the pregnant person, the
owner of their body. (y) (y) yay the point of the essay I cant believe you have to write a fucking
essay about this its literally common sense or it should be common sense god I hate people
One other example that Thomson uses to illustrate her defence of abortion is the example of
the good samaritan, the well known bible allegory oh I love the bible YOU SHOULDNT BE
GAY ALSO DONT HAVE INDOOR TOILETS great advice there jesus thank u for that. We have
in fact to Thomson says, this phrasing seems strange distinguish between two kinds of
samaritan: the Good Samaritan and the Minimally Decent Samaritan.7 haha I like that This
distinction affords the argument a way of separating what action is unjust and morally indecent. In
this example, Thomson supposes that pregnancy is a mildly inconvenient hour, rather than a
potentially life threatening or at least debilitating 9 months. Im assuming theres more to this quote
bc that doesnt come across from that extract? This, she suggests, shows that the Good Samaritan
action would be allowing, in this example, the violinist to use your kidneys for an hour, Im
imagining a kidney rental system whereas the Minimally Decent Samaritan would not take this
action, and would be completely just in doing so, as it is not their moral duty to continue to keep the
violinist alive. Thomson compares this to a case of pregnancy by rape. Because the pregnant person
7 Thomson, A Defence of Abortion, p. 62.

8
did not voluntarily do anything to bring about the existence of a child, they are therefore not
actually morally obligated to continue allowing the foetus to use their body. There is, says
Thomson, a difference between what one ought to do and what is unjust for one to do.
It seems that there are many cases where abortion could be a just and moral decision.
Particular cases such as those of the pregnant persons life being at risk, or pregnancy as a result of
rape can and do happen and it is with these in mind that we should form our perspectives on the
necessity, morality and legality of abortion. nice, concise, I dig that sentence, keep it real
However, it could be argued that since Thomson believes that some cases of abortion are morally
indecent, such as a person in her seventh month, and wants the abortion just to avoid the nuisance
of postponing a trip abroad8, when has that ever happened like ??????why should everyones
right to bodily autonomy be based on examples like????????? ??????????????????????????????????
she does not fully explore the reasons one might have for abortion, or even the morality of forcing a
person to keep their baby. Ultimately, if one does not want the baby, the baby will have to grow up
unwanted, and this is potentially damaging to the childs life. idk maybe get some psych facts n
figures in here if u can idk what youd google my child was an accident help my sperm made this
and did an awful job how do I back out now Not only this, but potentially mentally damaging to the
birth parent as well. Also, forcing people to allow their bodies to change in a way they don't want
seems arguably to be one of the most immoral actions. If we are to have any rights
in this world, surely they be the rights arr they be the rights
to the control of our own bodies? Thomsons arguments in defines how grammur of
abortion are valid and convincing, however they are arbitrary, as we cannot consider
the morality of abortion only in the cases of death and rape, as this does not provide
us with a clear, fully picture much picture very full of the debate.

8 Thomson, A Defense of Abortion, p. 66.

Bibliography

J. J. Thomson (1971) A defence of abortion, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1), 47-66

thats fascinating jeff