Thomson Defense of Abortion free essay sample

In this paper I will discuss the relevance of J. J. Thomson’s argument in her article, A Defense of Abortion, to that of pregnancy reduction and if there is any relevance, if there are exceptions or situations where that might change. J. J. Thomson’s argument in A Defense of Abortion is that the one thing a person has rights to is his/her body and the right to control what happens with it. Thomson also states that there is an innate desire and need for self-preservation that we all have that must additionally be considered. To support her argument, Thomson uses the example of a violinist where an unconscious violinist would only stay alive if you were constantly attached to him to compensate for his fatal kidney ailment. She states, â€Å"If he is unplugged from you now, he will die: but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you†. We will write a custom essay sample on Thomson Defense of Abortion or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Her premise is that a person’s right to life does not include the right to use another person’s body and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life or deprive him of the use of your body – to which he has no right. Another example Thomson uses to make her argument is that opponents use that abortion is â€Å"directly killing a child† therefore killing an innocent person is morally wrong however, â€Å"letting a person die† as in the case of the mother’s life being at risk would not be directly killing them. Thomson supports that this does not give the mother’s life the same status as the unborn child’s life and ignores her natural tendency for self-preservation. In the article The Two Minus One Pregnancy, pregnancy reduction is explained as having a multiple child pregnancy reduced at least one child, meaning they actually decide to kill one of the babies while still in the mothers stomach, whether that be for health or other reasons. J. J. Thompson’s arguments can all be applied to the discussion of pregnancy reduction since they could all be from the same situations as a single pregnancy. Whether the pregnancy was by choice or not the argument of Thompson’s that an individual has sole rights to their body and no person or group should assert that they have more right over another person than that person has over their self. In pregnancy reduction the same arguments that Thomson uses would apply especially concerning her example of finding yourself trapped in a tiny house with a growing child in it and that you would be crushed to death but the child would not be crushed to death if allowed to continue growing. She concludes that it would not be a bystander’s decision to decide who lives or dies but that you have the right to attack to save your own life. This is pertinent because pregnancy reduction requires a medical procedure, therefore involves a third party, a bystander, that you are asking to help you in your own self defense and because multiple pregnancy is most often a higher risk to the mother as well as the child. She states that both parties are innocent here and â€Å"the person threatened† can interfere even if it requires a third party to assist her. What a third party might do in response to a woman’s request for an abortion could vary and they have that right however no third party should stop a woman from defending â€Å"her life against the threat to it posed by the unborn child even if doing so involves its death. Thomson goes on to say that the mother has more rights than the child because the â€Å"mother owns the house† and therefore more rights than a renter. One difference that would be the most obvious is that it seems highly unlikely that a person would seek an abortion if they went through the time and expense of attempting to become pregnant by means of artificial insemination or other means of medically intentionally becoming pregnant. Even with this significant difference, it could be argued that a person might desire to not have more than one child at a time even though they â€Å"intentionally† got pregnant. Therefore, Thompson’s arguments still apply in these cases. There is no difference morally on abortion of a singleton pregnancy or a multiple pregnancy that would apply with Thomson’s arguments because those that supported the belief that any abortion was killing would use the same argument for â€Å"killing† one fetus and keeping one. Additionally, those that supported the woman’s right to make decisions about her own body or health would still use those claims in a woman’s right to choose whether or not she had the right to a pregnancy reduction. In conclusion, Thomson’s argument, in A Defense of Abortion, that the one thing a person has rights to is his or her body and the right to control what happens with it and to fight for self-preservation would not change at all if those same arguments were applied to a pregnancy reduction situation.