Is Abortion Permissible?
In “A Defense of Abortion” Judith Jarvis Thomson argues for the point that abortion can be considered permissible in society. Abortion is a controversial topic in society due to the morality of whether or not women should have the right to abort. Her premise to the argument is that a fetus has no right to the mother’s body. She argues that this is especially true for times when a woman is accidently impregnated, such as rape and faulty contraception. I find that Thomson’s claim in support of abortion regarding rape cases holds to be valid however, accidental pregnancies that involve faulty contraception fail to justify the extraction of a fetus.
Thomson’s argument is that women should be able to exercise the right to abort a fetus they did not want. She solidifies her point by using the Henry Fonda thought experiment. One of her thought experiments states, “If I am sick unto death, and the only thing that will save my life is the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on my fevered brow, then all the same, I have no right to be given the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on my fevered brow” (Thomson, p. 567). The author utilizes this experiment to allow her readers to understand that as human beings, we have a right to life yet, we are not responsible for keeping someone else alive. Thomson is saying that the fetus has no right to force you to see to its own birth, and keep it alive. In the Fonda example the fetus is a person and she shows even people do not have this right. Thomson’s premises are that a fetus has no right to the mother’s body. The mother has no moral obligation to keep the fetus inside of her because she has control over her own body. Therefore, she claims it is not wrong for a mother to abort her fetus. Thomson shows that abortion is not immoral, because it does not violate any rights.
She also presents another thought experiment in which a popular violinist is at the brink of death and needs your kidneys to continue to live. A society of Music Lovers kidnaps you against your will and hooks you up to the violinist because you are the only perfect match that will allow him to use your kidneys. You must stay with him for nine months in order for him to recover but you are able to unplug at your own free will, but he will die if you do (Thomson, p. 565). In this visual, Thomson makes it obvious that you did not consent to being strapped to this man. Once again, just like the Henry Fonda experiment, it would be a very selfless act to stay strapped to the violinist for nine months, but you have no moral obligation to not detach yourself from him (Thomson, p.567). When thinking about accidental conception, just like how you did not want to be attached to the violinist, the mother did not want to conceive a fetus, which is why she should have the ability to abort the fetus and not have to deal with it. Both of these analogies further support her claims that abortion of a fetus that was misconceived through accidental causes is permissible.
Accidental pregnancy can come from either rape or faulty contraception. I believe Thomson’s claim to hold true for a woman who has been raped. Rape is a non-consensual act that could lead to women having unwanted pregnancies. If we were to use Thomson’s logic, since Fonda is not required to save your life because he had no control over your ailment, then a raped women is not required to keep her baby because she had no control over the conception. With the use of contraception, sex is consensual. Therefore, they should know even through the use of contraception there is still a possibility that the couple could conceive a fetus. Knowingly, both parties are taking a risk that can result in the conceiving of a fetus and should therefore, be willing to assume the consequences that could come of their actions. In the Henry Fonda example, Fonda had no involvement with how you became terminally ill, and that is why he was not required to save you. However in this case, even though the conception of a fetus may not have been desired, it occurred through no fault other than the couple themselves. Since the fetus was put into this state of dependance by the mother’s own fault, he now has the right to require the mother to keep himself alive. This brings up the new question if whether or not the woman should bring this baby to term and is it morally obligated now that they brought this fetus into the world knowingly. I feel like now that we introduced that the mother now has a moral obligation to keep the fetus alive, an abortion should not be permissible.
Let us put into light another thought experiment that Thomson brings up which involves people seeds. In this thought experiment there are “people-seeds that drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery” (Thomson, p. 569). Thomson continues by saying the homeowner can put screens up but they may be defective and could cause people-seeds to fly in. (569) The homeowner voluntarily wanted their windows to be open but took the precaution of putting screens up, which is an analogy to a person having sex with contraception. Contraception can sometimes be faulty, but people voluntarily use it, just like the homeowner voluntarily wanted to keep their windows open using screens. It seems to me that there is now a moral obligation to let this fetus go to term because you would be killing something that you knowingly brought into existence, and to kill the fetus would be committing a heinous act.
Some may say that this fetus, was brought upon because of the mistake the couple had made and could still be unwanted. There are many factors that can cause a couple to not want to keep a conceived fetus. Some of the more common reasons could range from financial instability to the couple simply not desiring a child at the moment. It may seem practical for the couple to abort the fetus so the future child would not suffer from their environment, but morally speaking, the fetus should not be aborted. Thomson’s argument does not address practicality, but morality. The validity of her argument would not work in this scenario either, due to what I stated previously about using contraception and how it is consensual. Therefore, it makes it morally right to keep the child.
Another rejection to my claim may be, the manner in which a sudden line is created distinguishing which fetuses’ lives are more important than the other. There is a noticeably more support to save a fetus who was conceived through faulty contraception than rape. Fetuses that are conceived through rape and faulty contraception are conceived through distinct circumstances and should be treated as separate cases. To reference Thomson’s example, the violinist experiment, the cause and effect are both non-consensual. The famous violinist has a terminally ill disease, which is the non-consensual cause. You played no part in it, so you have no responsibility for it. The violinist society then attaches you to the machine, which would be the non-consensual effect. Thomson inadvertently shows that since the cause was non-consensual then the effect must also be non-consensual. Same could be said about the Fonda experiment; the cause being you getting sick, and the effect being Henry Fonda needing to touch you. The same is not the case for faulty contraceptive births because the cause is consensual sex. A consensual cause can not lead to a non-consensual pregnancy, or at least not a one hundred percent non-consensual effect, by Thomson’s earlier logic. The first two scenarios can not be treated the same as the latter due to the different causes. Going back to the objection, we cannot treat both the rape and faulty contraceptive fetuses the same as they have different causes, despite holding the same consequence.