abortion argument

The moral permissibility of abortion033015

TA: Nanhee ByrnesOffice hours: W 11:00-2:00

Office HSS 7055

Thomson’s argument

Claim: Abortion is morally permissible.What are her premises? p1: Fetus is a person.p2: A person has the right to life. but p3:_______________________________________Fetus has no right to use another person’s body.

Establish p3!Argument by _______

= The violinist has no right to use my body.no violation of the right to life of the violinist when I unplug. so permissible to unplug. The fetus has no right to use my body.no violation of the right to life of the fetus when I abort.permissible to abort.

analogy

How to destroy Thomspon?

Strategy: show that there are morally-relevant disanalogies.I.e., Show _________________

to the conclusion:It is morally __________to unplug from the violinist, but ____________to abort.

fetus ≠ violinist

permissibleimpermissible

Show (fetus ≠ violinist)

1. Who caused the event? I am responsible for the existence of the fetus, but not for

the illiness of the violinist. So, abortion= _____________________.

2. What is the relationship like? ____________________________________

3. How would they die without my assistance? _________________

morally wrong negligence

stranger vs offspring (duty to near and dear)

killing and letting die

How to rescue Thompson? Strategy: show that there are no morally-relevant differences between

the fetus and the violinist.

1. Who caused the event? ________________________________________________

2. What is the relationship like?______________________________________________ _________________________________

3. How would they die without my assistance?________________________________________________

I merely forsaw, never intending the existence of the fetus.

The fetus was unintended and uninvited, so the fetus is a stranger to me. Or even worse, it behaves like a tumor.

There is no moral difference between killing and letting die