Thomson's Violinist Analogy for Abortion

Introduction Today I will argue in defense of Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist analogy, and show that it provides a sound moral justification for abortion choice. I would like to start off with the central argument against abortion that virtually all opponents of abortion make against this practice. Once I present this anti-abortion argument, I will put forth Thomson's thought experiment as a counter example to the claim made by opponents of abortion, and will attempt to show that even if the premises of the anti-abortion argument are true, the conclusion that abortion is morally impermissible does not follow. With that said, let me begin. The Central Argument Against Abortion P1) An innocent person has a right to life. P2) A human fetus is an innocent person. C1) Therefore the human fetus has a right to life. P4) Abortion ends the life of the human fetus. C2) Abortion is morally impermissible. The Violinist Analogy Thomson assumes for the sake of the argument that the fetus has the same right to life that you and I have, but claims that admitting this does not necessarily show that abortion is morally impermissible. This is because she makes a distinction between the right to life and the right to be kept alive by another person's body. Thomson claims that the right to life by itself does not mean one has the right to be kept alive by another person. In order to justify that claim, she provides the following thought experiment:"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. " [1]Thomson thinks that most people would think you would be within your rights disconnect yourself from the violinist, and that you would not be violating his right to life by refusing to provide him life support. This thought experiment justifies Thomson's claim that the right to life by itself does not entail the right to be kept alive by another person. This is because if the right to life by itself did entail the right to be kept alive by making use of another's body, then the violinist would be entitled to use your body even if you didn't want him to. However, given the strong intuition that this analogy produces, that seems like a difficult claim to defend. Conclusion Not much else can be said about this argument. It appeals to our moral intuitions and seems very persuasive on the face of it. As such, until someone can provide good grounds for rejecting this argument, it looks like we are justified in accepting Thomson's argument. Source:. http://spot.colorado.edu...;