Are the vast majority of abortions immoral? In “ Why Abortion is Immoral”, Don Marquis argues that they are immoral because the typical fetus has a future like ours so to kill it is to deprive it of a future of value. Marquis’ argument rests on the assumption that the morality of abortion depends on the moral status of the typical fetus and whether killing it is morally wrong. In “A Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson challenges this assumption by using several analogies to show that under some circumstances, the moral status of the typical fetus does not outweigh a woman’s right to her body. She says that those who assume that a fetus is a human person with high moral status base their argument on that the fetus has a right to life
…show more content…
And she also says that in extreme cases where the life of the mother is at stake and the pregnancy is due to rape then we cannot come to the conclusion that the morality of abortion depends on moral status of the fetus. This is because regardless of a fetus assumed to have moral status, it does not enforce that the woman is morally obliged to allow the fetus to use her body for 9 months. (Thomson, 54-57) To expand further, Thomson says an abortion is moral when the woman has not assumed a “special responsibility” for the fetus such as allowing the pregnancy to last longer than the normal time to abort. She believes that choosing one’s body over the fetus who is innocent with a right to life is not morally wrong as long as the killing is not done unjustly. She uses the famous violinist analogy of where a stranger is plugged into you for him to survive to show that even if that person is related to you or a stranger, then, unplugging yourself from him is not morally wrong because we are not demanded by our morals to sacrifice our body at the expense of the fetus. (Thomson, 65) She uses this analogy to argue that having a right to life does not always give someone a right to use another’s body unless the mother willingly makes the sacrifice. Her reasoning here does …show more content…
Marquis argues in favor of this assumption because he believes that it is wrong to kill a fetus because it has a future of value like ours and depriving it of that future makes the vast of abortions immoral. On the other hand, Thomson’s argument rejects this assumption because she insists that under some circumstances abortion is permissible and moral. As mentioned above, she argues that the right to life of a fetus does not outweigh the right to use one’s body. So after analyzing Thomson’s argument, the answer to this question is that the vast majority of abortions are not immoral because in both the extreme and typical case, the woman has the choice of assuming responsibility for the fetus. So the morality of abortion according to Thomson depends on whether the killing is unjust and not the moral status of the fetus. Overall, Thomson's reasoning that all abortions are not immoral does extend to the typical cases of abortions because what is important is not the moral justification for abortion but a woman’s right to choose what happens with her
And she also says that in extreme cases where the life of the mother is at stake and the pregnancy is due to rape then we cannot come to the conclusion that the morality of abortion depends on moral status of the fetus. This is because regardless of a fetus assumed to have moral status, it does not enforce that the woman is morally obliged to allow the fetus to use her body for 9 months. (Thomson, 54-57) To expand further, Thomson says an abortion is moral when the woman has not assumed a “special responsibility” for the fetus such as allowing the pregnancy to last longer than the normal time to abort. She believes that choosing one’s body over the fetus who is innocent with a right to life is not morally wrong as long as the killing is not done unjustly. She uses the famous violinist analogy of where a stranger is plugged into you for him to survive to show that even if that person is related to you or a stranger, then, unplugging yourself from him is not morally wrong because we are not demanded by our morals to sacrifice our body at the expense of the fetus. (Thomson, 65) She uses this analogy to argue that having a right to life does not always give someone a right to use another’s body unless the mother willingly makes the sacrifice. Her reasoning here does …show more content…
Marquis argues in favor of this assumption because he believes that it is wrong to kill a fetus because it has a future of value like ours and depriving it of that future makes the vast of abortions immoral. On the other hand, Thomson’s argument rejects this assumption because she insists that under some circumstances abortion is permissible and moral. As mentioned above, she argues that the right to life of a fetus does not outweigh the right to use one’s body. So after analyzing Thomson’s argument, the answer to this question is that the vast majority of abortions are not immoral because in both the extreme and typical case, the woman has the choice of assuming responsibility for the fetus. So the morality of abortion according to Thomson depends on whether the killing is unjust and not the moral status of the fetus. Overall, Thomson's reasoning that all abortions are not immoral does extend to the typical cases of abortions because what is important is not the moral justification for abortion but a woman’s right to choose what happens with her