Fetus Feuds

A Critical Analysis of Thomson's A Defense of Abortion

Abstract

Judith Jarvis Thomson's article, A Defense of Abortion, covers a deeply debated subject in moral philosophy due to its controversial and powerful stance in favour of the right to have an abortion. In this paper, I critique her work and in so doing, aim to affirm her position that abortion is morally permissible. I analyse the hypothetical scenarios Thomson uses for her position which include The Violinist, The Engulfing Baby, The Jacket, and The Burglar. Upon close inspection, the core argument of each of these analogies proves that the right to make decisions about one's body and the right to self-defence are stronger than that of the fetus's use of one's body. As will be discussed, her paper does not go without criticism. John Finnis argues that the fetus has ownership rights which should not be violated through abortion. However, his argument is weakened, because it cannot be applied when a pregnancy is life threatening. This would violate the mother's ownership rights. I will contend that Thomson's "right to autonomy" argument, in favour of the right to abort, is more pertinent than Finnis' claim, because it can be applied to all situations. Another well-known point of discussion, proposed as the dilemma of "actively killing" or "allowing to die" by Philippa Foot, will also be examined. In this paper, I contend that Foot's concern is less relevant than Thomson's, given that aborting would be followed by an already available sequence of events that does not impact the overall moral right to autonomy. With these convincing critiques, I conclude that Foot's dilemma dissipates, and we are left with the argument that Thomson's right to autonomy in favour of the moral permissibility of abortion prevails.