Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Scrutinizer · 04-06-2002, 05:58 PM

Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote an article titled "A Defence of Abortion" in which she argued that even if the foetus is granted "personhood", it still does not entail that abortion is impermissible. Basically, she argued that a woman's right to decide what happens in her body overrides the foetus' right to life where keeping the foetus alive would entail "Splendid Samaritanism", and that no woman should be expected to be a Splendid Samaritan during a 9-month pregnancy.

I simply found this interesting considering that the crucial assumption in discussing whether a foetus deserves legal protection is that labelling it a "person" gives it the same sorts of entitlements as a fully mature and independent person.

As an aside, I disagree with Thomson's evaluation, but I'm certainly interested if anyone else has read Thomson's article and thinks along with her that even if a foetus is a person, abortion is still permissible in most circumstances.

- Scrutinizer

P.S. A definition of "person" I've come across is the one coined by John Locke, that a person is a being who 'can think of itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places.'

tronvillain · 04-06-2002, 06:11 PM

I read the article for my biomedical ethics class, and I would say that even if a foetus is a person, abortion is still permissible in most circumstances. Her point is that giving a foetus the same sort of entitlement as a fully mature and independent person does not obligate a woman to go throught the inconveniece of providing it with nine months of life support. If you started using my body for life support and it had the effect of playing havoc with my body and ending in an intensely painful experience, I think it entirely possible that I would consider myself justified in removing you.

Bunda · 04-06-2002, 06:16 PM

My view is that whether the fetus is a person or not is inconsequential. The fact is, while in the mother a fetus is a parasite. That automatically voids any rights it has to life if the host(mother) decides she no longer wants to provide from her body. It's a matter of human rights, not fetus rights.

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bunda ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-06-2002, 05:58 PM	#11
Scrutinizer Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 245	Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote an article titled "A Defence of Abortion" in which she argued that even if the foetus is granted "personhood", it still does not entail that abortion is impermissible. Basically, she argued that a woman's right to decide what happens in her body overrides the foetus' right to life where keeping the foetus alive would entail "Splendid Samaritanism", and that no woman should be expected to be a Splendid Samaritan during a 9-month pregnancy. I simply found this interesting considering that the crucial assumption in discussing whether a foetus deserves legal protection is that labelling it a "person" gives it the same sorts of entitlements as a fully mature and independent person. As an aside, I disagree with Thomson's evaluation, but I'm certainly interested if anyone else has read Thomson's article and thinks along with her that even if a foetus is a person, abortion is still permissible in most circumstances. - Scrutinizer P.S. A definition of "person" I've come across is the one coined by John Locke, that a person is a being who 'can think of itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places.'

04-06-2002, 06:11 PM	#12
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I read the article for my biomedical ethics class, and I would say that even if a foetus is a person, abortion is still permissible in most circumstances. Her point is that giving a foetus the same sort of entitlement as a fully mature and independent person does not obligate a woman to go throught the inconveniece of providing it with nine months of life support. If you started using my body for life support and it had the effect of playing havoc with my body and ending in an intensely painful experience, I think it entirely possible that I would consider myself justified in removing you.

04-06-2002, 06:16 PM	#13
Bunda Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Springfield, New Jersey, USA Posts: 27	My view is that whether the fetus is a person or not is inconsequential. The fact is, while in the mother a fetus is a parasite. That automatically voids any rights it has to life if the host(mother) decides she no longer wants to provide from her body. It's a matter of human rights, not fetus rights. [ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bunda ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.