Strategy Thomson Thomson thinks the arguments against abortion leave much to be desired. But, she also finds the pro-abortion arguments would benefit from further argumentation. Instead, she grants that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, and argues that there are cases in which abortion is permissible because the woman has rights which override those of the fetus The question is about the level of voluntariness in the woman s actions leading to pregnancy 1 2 Right-to-Life Argument Does the Fetus Have a Right-to-Life? 1. Every person has a right-to-life. 2. A fetus is a person. 3. Hence, a fetus has a right-to-life. 4. A mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body. 5. A fetus's right-to-life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body. 6. Hence, a fetus's right-to-life outweighs a mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body. Does the fetus have a right-to-life? Even if the fetus has a right-to-life, do the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother? How does one go about deciding whose rights are supreme? 7. Depriving one of one's right-to-life is immoral and may not be performed. 8. Abortion deprives the fetus of its right-to-life. 9. Therefore, abortion is immoral and may not be performed. 3 4
Violinist Analogy Violinist Counter-argument While you were sleeping last night, the Society of Music Lovers kidnapped and connected you to a famous violinist. The violinist s kidneys have failed and you are the perfect match. If the violinist were not connected to you, the violinist would die. The violinist needs your kidneys for only nine months. Must you remain hooked up to the violinist? Do you have a right to unplug? Violinist counterargument to Right-to-Life Argument trades on "kidnapping" of surrogate. So, violinist analogy only seems to apply to cases of rape One might argue that whether the fetus has a right-to-life or how much of a right-to-life shouldn't trade on it being or not being the product of rape. Why not? Thomson thinks the fetus resulting from rape has no rights over the mother Why? Because it is an involuntary pregnancy 5 6 Extreme View Abortion as Self-defense Abortion-permissible-to-save-mother's-life-if-self-performed View Abortion is impermissible even to save the mother's life 1. Performing the abortion would be directly killing the child. 2. Doing nothing would not be killing the mother, but only letting her die. 3. If one kills a fetus, one would be directly killing an innocent person. 4. Directly killing an innocent person is murder. 5. Murder is always and absolutely impermissible. Unplugging oneself from the violinist in order to save one s life is an act of self-defense and acts of self-defense are morally permissible to deny mother right to self-defense is to deny her same rightto-life fetus enjoys What can a third-party do to save the mother s life? While by-standers may feel they have no right to end a fetus s life, the mother can 6. Therefore, an abortion may not be performed. Child growing in house analogy 7 8
Growing Child in House Analogy Right of Ownership & Third-party Problem Imagine you are trapped in a very small house with a rapidly growing child In a few minutes, you will be crushed to death. But, the child will bust through the house and survive. A bystander might say they cannot intervene to save you from your impending death. But it does not follow that you cannot do something to save your life. A woman houses a child. Thomson thinks a woman has the right to defend her life against the threat posed by a fetus. Mother owns the house: so one cannot deduce what the mother ought to do from what third-parties ought to do Third-party impartiality is no excuse in denying the mother rights to control her body Thomson concludes the Extreme View of abortion is unsound In addition, saying I cannot choose between you and the growing child is not impartiality. Thomson does not want to confuse the right to life of the fetus with assumptions that one must be impartial about who lives or dies 9 10 Smith & Jones Coat Analogy Third-party Intervention and Right of Ownership Smith & Jones Coat Analogy: Jones is in possession of a coat which he needs to keep him from freezing Smith needs the same coat to keep him from freezing and Smith is the owner of the coat Is it legitimate to say, I cannot choose between you and Jones, when Smith says he s the owner? Smith has rights to the coat By analogy, the woman has rights to her body Justice seems to justify getting back Smith s coat even if it ultimately harms Jones. Smith owns the coat which Jones takes to stay warm; it is not impartial to give to Smith the coat to which he has a right. While one might not choose to help Smith, it does not follow that Smith cannot assert his right or that others cannot assist Smith secure his rights. With respect to the fetus, to what does the mother have rights? Is the fetus the property of the mother (like a coat)? Does the mother have the right to decide what happens in and to her body? 11 12
What does it mean to have a right-to-life? On Having a Right-to-Life 1) A right-to-life includes having a right to be given the bare minimum one needs for continued life What if the bare minimum is something one has no right to be given? Henry Fonda s cool hand Analogy: even if Fonda s cool hand on your forehead was all that was needed to save your life, you do not have a right to be given Fonda s cool hand Similarly, the violinist has no right to demand that you hook yourself to him or stay hooked in. For nobody has any right to use your kidneys unless you give him such a right (55). 2) A right-to-life amounts to and only to the right not to be killed by anybody But does any one person have rights against everyone else not to be killed? The violinist has no rights against you to demand that you not unplug On having a right-to-life: "I am arguing only that having a right-to-life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person's body even if one needs it for life itself. (56) Having a right does not necessarily mean that one has a right to use that right regardless of the circumstances The fetus s right-to-life does not outweigh the mother s rights to her body Is the mother being unjust? 13 14 Depriving-one-of-a-right-to-life-is-unjust View Bestowing of Rights Right-to-life is the right not to be killed unjustly Box of Chocolates Analogy: Taking someone else s box of chocolates and not sharing it with the person to whom it was given (who has rights to the chocolate) is unjust Violinist has no rights against you, so unplugging yourself is not unjust How does one acquire rights from another? By the person giving one a right through invitation. Is abortion a case of unjust killing? the gap in the argument against abortion stares us plainly in the face: it is by no means enough to show that the fetus is a person, and to remind us that all persons have a right-to-life we need to be shown also that killing the fetus violates its right-to-life, i.e., that abortion is unjust killing. And is it?" (127). What are cases of being invited in which the fetus might have rights against the mother? 15 16
Responsibility and Right-to-Life People Seed Analogy People Seeds Analogy: the room is stuffy and you decide to open the window to get some fresh air What responsibilities might the mother have in cases where she acted voluntarily but in which she does not intend to become pregnant? Does the fetus have rights against the mother in cases of voluntary intercourse where pregnancy is possible? When has a woman extended an invitation to a fetus? in climbs a burglar. Does the burglar have the right to stay because the window was open? One is partially responsible for the burglar s presence since the window was open One opened the window with full knowledge of the existence of burglars No. It would be absurd to imply otherwise. Even more absurd if one had bars outside one s window to prevent burgling. 17 18 People Seed Analogy* Life Without Fresh Air People Seeds Analogy*: people seeds float in the air like pollen and might drift in through a open window and take root in your carpet and upholstery. You don t want children, so you install the best screens on your windows. But, even the best screens might be defective. A people seed drifts in and implants itself in your carpet. Does the person-plant have a right to use your apartment? Thomson says, No. Even though you opened the window knowing that even the best screens can be defective, the person-plant has no rights against you. Counter-response: One could live one s life without sex The argument that the woman could live her life without sex is no better than saying pregnancy due to rape could be prevented by having a hysterectomy or leaving the house with a reliable army At best, Thomson thinks there are some cases where the fetus has rights against the mother. Nonetheless, not all abortions are unjust killings. 19 20
Morally-Indecent View Thomson This view interprets "rights" to imply doing something even though no one has rights against you for that action. It would be indecent not to stay attached to violinist for an hour, even though you were kidnapped. You ought to stay plugged in to the violinist even though the violinist has no rights against you However, ought to allow use of one s body right to use of one s body Principle behind view: A ought to do a thing for B implies B has a right against A that A do it for B. Thomson thinks this principle is mistaken. Box of chocolates: boy given chocolate does not have to share with his brother, even if doing so would be decent So my own view is that even though you ought to let the violinist use your kidneys for the one hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has a right to do so we should say that if you refuse, you are, like the boy who owns all the chocolates and will give none away, self-centered and callous, indecent in fact, but not unjust. And similarly, that even supposing a case in which a woman pregnant due to rape ought to allow the unborn person to use her body for the hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has a right to do so; we should conclude that she is self-centered, callous, indecent, but not unjust, if she refuses.and so also for the mother and unborn child. Except in such cases as the unborn person has a right to demand it and we are leaving open the possibility that there may be such cases nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive. (61-62) 21 22 The Issue of Responsibility When has a woman taken on special responsibility? Taking on responsibility involves the mother implicitly or explicitly assuming that responsibility When does a mother assume responsibility? Thomson thinks that if the mother/couple take all reasonable precautions to prevent pregnancy, then she/they have not assumed responsibility. Is it only the woman who must assume responsibility, or also the man? What are the different levels of responsibility? Feinberg s Levels of Responsibility (with some additions) When is the woman responsible? 1. involuntary pregnancy (rape) 2. contraceptive failure (fault of manufacturer) 3. contraceptive failure (statistical rate of failure) 4. contraceptive failure (misuse) a. uncooperative partner b. negligent partner 5. reckless behavior (consider but ignore risk) may include psychological distress and/or substance use 6. reckless behavior (indifferent to risk) may include psychological distress and/or substance use 7. intention to get pregnant 23 24
What Thomson Has Been Arguing First, while I do argue that abortion is not impermissible, I do not argue that it is always permissible. (65) A young teen who is raped can permissibly secure an abortion. A woman seven-months pregnant who wants to abort so she does not have to cancel a trip abroad is not justified in securing an abortion. Second, while I am arguing for the permissibility of abortion in some cases, I am not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child. (66) One may unplug oneself, but one does not have the right to secure the death of the person from which one is unplugged (assuming that person survives the unplugging). 25