Wassmer 1
Heather Wassmer
Instructor Greg Spendlove
PHIL 1120-005
November 28, 2011
Summary/ Opinion Paper #2
In Judith Jarvis Thomson’s article on “A Defense of Abortion”, she argues that if we
accept the premise that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception to be true. And when
we examine it closely, “we will feel inclined to reject” (48) the conclusion that abortion is
morally impermissible. After she gives her thesis, she states the main argument that is against
abortion. This is that everyone has a right to life, and so abortion is morally impermissible. Then
Thomson gives an example related to rape. And says that “…people who oppose abortion… do
not make an exception in case of rape…cases of a mother spending nine months in bed…Some
won’t even make an exception for a case in which continuation of the pregnancy is likely to
shorten the mother’s life…” (49 & 50). Thomson then goes by making many points that “come
out in respect to” (50) this. First point, that if the mother is in danger of losing her life due to the
pregnancy she can defend herself, even if that means the fetus dies. Second point, the mother
owns her body not the fetus; therefore no third party can do anything. Third point, which is just
because you have the right of life doesn’t mean you have the right to be “…given the use of or
right to be allowed…” (56) the use of someone else’s body. Fourth point, that if a woman
protects herself with while having sex but still gets pregnant does not give the fetus right to use
your body. Fifth point, just because the woman owns the body and does not give the right to the
fetus to use her body doesn’t make her unjust. It just makes her “…self-centered, callous,
Wassmer 2
indecent, but not unjust, if she refuses” (61). Then lastly Thomson states her argument can be
unsatisfactory in two ways. “First, while I do argue that abortion is in not impermissible, I do not
argue that it is always permissible…Secondly, 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 (6566)”. (Thomson).
In the article by Don Marquis, “Why Abortion is Immoral”, he suggests that to solve the
abortion controversy we have to look at the “…theoretical account of the wrongness of killing”
(189). And to develop that account he says that we start with our own case, “it is wrong to kill
us” (189). And what makes that wrong, he says, is because of the effects on the victim. The
victim has lost all value of their future, the experiences that they would have come to value. He
then states his thesis that “the point of the analysis is to establish which natural property
ultimately explains the wrongness of the killing, given that it is wrong” (190). After his thesis, he
gives premises to what a natural property will explain. “A natural property will ultimately
explain the wrongness of killing only if (1) the explanation fits with our intuitions about the
matter and (2) there are no other natural property that provides the basis for a better explanation
of the wrongness of killing”(190).
Wassmer 3
Wassmer 4
Works Cited
Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol.1, No.1,
1971, p. 47-53, 55-61, 65-66.