abortion

We are ready to represent the best custom paper writing assistance that can cope with any task like abortion even at the eleventh hour. The matter is that we posses the greatest base of expert writers. Our staff of freelance writers includes approximately 300 experienced writers are at your disposal all year round. They are striving to provide the best ever services to the most desperate students that have already lost the hope for academic success. We offer the range of the most widely required, however, not recommended for college use papers. It is advisable to use our examples like abortion in learning at public-education level. Get prepared and be smart with our best essay samples cheap and fast! Get in touch and we will write excellent custom coursework or essay especially for you.

In “A Defense of Abortion” Judith Thomson employs clever analogy to tackle the question of the morality of abortion on an atypical battlefield. She cedes the most embattled point of the entire debate in order to take a longer look at its oft-ignored results. When Thomson surrenders the belief that the fetus is human life from conception, albeit for the sole purpose of furthering debate, the contest seems given over to the typical pro-life view far from it.

Rather than argue over where the arbitrary line should be drawn demarcating the beginning of human life, Ms. Thomson would prefer a debate on the rights given to a human life and the rights of the fetus when weighed against the rights of the mother. Those who oppose abortion adopt the stance that, as a human life, a fetus has the right to life, which outweighs the mother’s right to govern her body. Among the objections raised by abortion proponents is the possibility that the mother’s right to life can be put into jeopardy through pregnancy. To accentuate these objections and portray the shortcomings of the ‘pro-life’ train of thought, Ms Thomson asks the reader to imagine what is referred to henceforth as the ‘Violinist Example’.

Ms. Thomson asks us to imagine a case in which we were to awaken in a hospital after having been kidnapped and grafted to a famous musician. His survival is dependant on the continued support of our internal organs, and while it is unfortunate that we were not consulted before this procedure was performed, reversing it would amount to direct murder and would therefore be disallowed. While farfetched, this example seems wholly analogous to a case of impregnation by rape, and it is Ms. Thomson’s belief that it is nigh impossible, ethically, to defensibly hold the position that abortion is allowable in cases of rape but not elsewhere. This would amount to measuring ones right to life against the means in which one was conceived.

Assuming at least a nominal, general sense of altruism in the world population, and that some music lovers in her readership might leap at the chance to save unparalleled talent, Ms. Thomson pushes her example further in an attempt to have her conclusions universally applicable. She asks us to consider our reaction to being told that the man we are inseparable from is killing us, and will cause our organs to fail quite soon. This argument spells out the difficulty in differentiating between direct and indirect killing. Ms. Thomson argues that we cannot possibly accept our own death, and the subsequent death of the violinist when we could simply reach around and unplug that which was killing us. This killing, for Ms. Thomson, would be self-defense. What makes the situation all the more difficult is that “[b]oth are innocent the one who is threatened is not threatened because of any fault, the one who threatens does not threaten because of any fault.” (Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion”, Philosophy & Public Affairs 1 (171) 5)




Ms. Thomson’s ‘Violinist Example’ shows the inadequacy of the belief that the right to life of a fetus is paramount to the right of a mother over her body in cases where the mothers life is at stake or cases where rape is responsible for pregnancy. However, cases such as these account for a very small percentage of abortions, and Ms. Thomson would have us outlaw none. She would have us allow all abortions, because she believes that there is a distinction to be drawn between what others have a right to, and what we ought do. Ethically, we ought to be a “Minimally Decent Samaritan” (6). This, in no way, requires us to be a ‘Good Samaritan’. According to Ms. Thomson, we cannot, or rather should not, be required by law to behave at any higher standard than the lowest ethically acceptable. This is the foundation of Ms. Thomson’s defense of her argument.

While the ‘Violinist Example’ is only truly analogous in cases of rape, or when the mothers life is in danger, the conclusions are widespread and stand up to the most commonly held opposition. When faced with cases in which the mother’s life is not at stake, Ms. Thomson remains vigilant, considering what is meant by a ‘right to life’.

In some views having a right to life includes having a right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life. But suppose that what in fact is the bare minimum a man needs for continued life is something he has no right at all to be given? (55)

Thomson cedes that the fetus has a right to life, but she will not cede it’s right to what would be required to sustain that life. She cannot cede it because it is not hers to give. For Thomson, the decision over whether to provide the life giving womb must be the decision of each mother, and neither the child, nor the state, have the right to demand it.

While Ms. Thomson has chosen unusual ground upon which to fight for the legitimacy of abortion, her conclusions seem to lie in familiar territory. The idea that the decision over abortion is personal and must be considered on an individual basis is longstanding and intelligible, but also somewhat of a cop-out. To say that a law must not be passed regarding an activity because of the individual nature of each case is to ignore the entire process of judicial review in our system. On this subject, Ms. Thomson’s opinion is sound, but seems to rest on the same shaky ground as those that came before her.

In cases where rape is not a factor, abortion opponents would claim that voluntarily participating in the act of procreation forgoes a woman’s right to abortion. She has knowingly accepted the possibility that her actions would result in a new life, which is uniquely dependant upon her. Ms. Thomson is somewhat thrown by this proposition, citing an analogy of an open window allowing a burglar to enter and thus have rights over the home. On this topic, her conclusion is by far the weakest, preferring to “sidestep this issue and leave it open, for at any rate the argument certainly does not establish that all abortion is unjust killing.” (5) Thomson claims that without voluntary acceptance of the fetus, not just the potential, there is most certainly no right to use of the mothers body. I am inclined to agree, and once again we are brought to a position of differentiating between what we ought do, and what we must do.

It feels appropriate, yet trite, to conclude that we should do as we feel ethically bound, but that seems to be the conclusion that Ms. Thomson draws. Her intent was not to prove that all abortion is ethical but to say that there are times when an abortion is rationally and morally acceptable. The end result of that conclusion is that abortion must not be deemed illegal. It seems Ms. Thomson is content to allow the reader to draw arbitrary lines in her conclusion where she would not. Never drawing the distinction of when a fetus becomes a life, she asks each person to draw the line as too how much of their life they would give up to save a dying maestro. We ought give an hour, she says, but it should in no way be required of us. (60) In the same vein, a woman in the seventh month of pregnancy aborting a fetus so as not to delay a vacation is a reprehensible human being, but not a criminal. (66) The standard to which the laws of a free society must be set is, unfortunately, the lowest standard. More can be expected, but it should not be required.



Mind that the sample papers like abortion presented are to be used for review only. In order to warn you and eliminate any plagiarism writing intentions, it is highly recommended not to use the essays in class. In cases you experience difficulties with essay writing in class and for in class use, order original papers with our expert writers. Cheap custom papers can be written from scratch for each customer that entrusts his or her academic success to our writing team. Order your unique assignment from the best custom writing services cheap and fast!