The essay i chose to read was A Defense of Abortion by Judith Jarvis Thompson. Obviously, it is about abortion. Thompson’s thesis is that even if the fetus is considered a person, abortion is still morally permissible even when the mother’s life is not threatened. She argues this by first defining what the “right to life means”. She uses a very interesting analogy to make her point. She ask the reader to imagine a situation, in which a violinist is attached to an unwilling host as life support. The host is kidnapped, and is there against her will. The violinist certainly has the right to live, however, he does not necessarily have a right to the host’s body. The point is that, a right to life doesn’t necessarily guarantee the right to resources that would keep someone alive. In turn, the right to life can be more strictly defined as a right to not be killed, rather than to not be allowed to die. From here, she starts using the Good Samaritan as a reference point. It is not expected of someone to go very far out of his way for someone else, or to be a good Samaritan. It is only expected for someone to be a minimally decent Samaritan. Therefore, a pregnant woman, who owns her own body, which the fetus depends on, has the right to her own decision regarding a pregnancy. The author then asks the reader to imagine a world where pregnancy is not very inconvenient. It only last an hour, and has no effect on the mother. In this situation, the mother ought to keep the pregnancy, but going back to the good Samaritan argument, the mother is not morally required. This is where Thompson makes the very persuasive point that what ought to be done isn’t necessarily what is morally right. It may be considered selfish to terminate a pregnancy in this case, but, that doesn’t make it unjustifiable. Thompson stresses that abortion opponents make black and white out of gray issues by labeling something that is morally neutral as wrong because it isn’t the perfect thing to do. Overall, her arguments make abortion justifiable, however, they still leave room for opposition from abortion opponents. At the end, she says that the moral permissibility of an abortion rests on the circumstances. Someone who did not plan the pregnancy and/or can not provide for the child certainly is not acting immorally if seeking an abortion. However, someone who terminates the pregnancy late for travel purposes is acting in an immoral way. This allows interpretation which will only keep abortion questionable. Although it does not negate her previous arguments, it does leave room for someone to call an abortion immoral for whatever reason they can argue. Thompson talks a little about birth control and planned pregnancies, but not enough to close the door to bickering over the responsibility a woman has for the consequences of sex. Thompson also brings up partial-birth abortions and how it the responsibility of the parents to take care of a child that survives an abortion attempt. This does sound completely reasonable, however, it is not good for the sake of the argument. It almost makes abortion seem like a game, and if you lose and the abortion does not work, you are stuck with a child.
