Judith Jarvis Thomson | Eine Verteidigung der Abtreibung | Geiger-Analogie und weitere Analogien

Summary

This video revisits Judith Jarvis Thomson's 1971 essay 'A Defense of Abortion' in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, examining her thought experiments challenging the moral and legal obligations around abortion. Thomson concedes the fetus's personhood but argues against an unconditional duty to preserve life, using analogies to explore scenarios where self-determination conflicts with the fetus's right to life. The video invites viewers to consider the nuances of the abortion debate, prompting reflection on individual rights and moral responsibilities.

Takeaways

• 📜 The US Supreme Court overturned the general right to an abortion on June 24, 2022, leaving the decision to individual states, many of which have since banned abortions.
• 🧐 American philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson is known for her thought experiments and moral philosophy, particularly her 1971 essay 'A Defense of Abortion', which is widely read and discussed.
• 🤔 Thomson's essay challenges the common argument against abortion by accepting the premise that a fetus is a person but questioning the moral obligation to preserve its life.
• 🎻 The 'violinist' analogy is used by Thomson to illustrate that recognizing a person's right to life does not necessarily imply a moral obligation to keep them alive using one's own body.
• 🚫 Thomson argues against the idea that a woman should be morally or legally obliged to fulfill a supererogatory obligation to preserve the life of an unborn child.
• 🤝 The debate often centers on whether the physical self-determination of the pregnant woman or the life of the child is more important, with Thomson rejecting a one-size-fits-all answer.
• 🚼 Thomson's argument does not support an unconditional right to life for the fetus, suggesting that the mother's right to self-determination can outweigh the fetus's right in certain cases.
• 🏠 The 'burglar' and 'human seed' analogies are used to argue that causal responsibility does not equate to a right to use another person's body, even in the case of failed contraception.
• 🤰 Thomson posits that a woman only has special responsibility towards a fetus if she has expressly or tacitly assumed it, and that the biological relationship alone does not confer such responsibility.
• 🙅‍♀️ Thomson's theory does not provide a blanket approval or disapproval of abortion; instead, it allows for specific moral considerations on a case-by-case basis.
• 🔚 At the end of her essay, Thomson suggests that very early abortions do not involve the killing of a person, thus not being affected by her arguments.

Q & A

What significant event occurred on June 24, 2022, regarding abortion rights in the United States?

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned the general right to an abortion, leaving the decision on abortion rights to individual states.

Who is Judith Jarvis Thomson and what is her contribution to the philosophy of abortion?

Judith Jarvis Thomson (1929-2020) was an influential American philosopher, particularly in moral philosophy, known for her thought experiments. Her 1971 essay 'A Defense of Abortion' is a widely read and discussed text in contemporary philosophy, where she explores the legitimacy of abortion through various thought experiments and analogies.

What is the 'Roe vs. Wade' ruling and its significance in the context of abortion rights in the United States?

The 'Roe vs. Wade' ruling in 1973 by the Supreme Court established that abortion before the 12th week of pregnancy could not be criminalized, even if individual states wanted to. This ruling was significant as it affirmed a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, a decision that was later overturned in 2022.

What is the common argument against abortion and how does it logically conclude that abortion is morally wrong?

The common argument against abortion is based on three premises: P1 - A person has the right to life, P2 - A fetus is a person and has a right to life, and P3 - An abortion intentionally causes the death of the fetus. From these, it concludes (K1 and K2) that deliberately causing the death of a fetus, and thus abortion, is morally wrong.

What does Thomson's argument concede in the debate about the moral status of the fetus?

Thomson's argument concedes premise 2 of the common argument against abortion, accepting that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception and has a right to life, in order to refute the argument from a different angle.

What is Thomson's primary method of argumentation in her essay 'A Defense of Abortion'?

Thomson primarily uses thought experiments and analogies to challenge the notion of an unconditional moral duty to keep people alive, focusing on the question of whether such a duty exists in the context of unwanted pregnancies.

What is the 'violinist' analogy and what does it aim to illustrate in the context of the abortion debate?

The 'violinist' analogy is a thought experiment where a person is kidnapped and connected to an unconscious violinist who needs their kidneys to survive. It aims to illustrate that even if one recognizes another person's right to life, it does not necessarily imply a moral obligation to keep them alive at the expense of one's own bodily autonomy.

What is the concept of 'supererogatory' in philosophy and how does it relate to Thomson's argument?

Supererogatory refers to actions that go beyond what is morally obligatory, exceeding what is reasonable for an individual. Thomson uses this concept to argue that staying connected to the violinist (or carrying an unwanted pregnancy) would be a supererogatory act and not a moral obligation.

What are the two scenarios Thomson considers where the fetus might have a right to use the pregnant woman's body?

Thomson considers two scenarios: 1) If the pregnant woman grants the fetus such a right, as in a desired pregnancy, and 2) If the woman is jointly responsible for the existence of the fetus, such as when the pregnancy is the result of a voluntary act.

What are the two most frequently raised objections to Thomson's 'A Defense of Abortion' and how does the script address them?

The first objection is that Thomson's analogies are too alien and bizarre to be reliable for moral intuitions or certain transfers to pregnancy. The second objection is that there is a general duty to help that requires preserving another person's life, implying the pregnant woman should continue the pregnancy. The script addresses these by explaining Thomson's intent to highlight weak points in anti-abortion arguments and challenging both extreme positions in the debate.

How does Thomson's theory approach the question of whether abortion should be categorically forbidden?

Thomson's theory does not offer a blanket 'yes' or 'no' to the abortion debate. Instead, it suggests that each case should be considered individually, weighing the rights of the fetus against the rights of the mother, and does not support a categorical ban on abortion.

Outlines

00:00

📜 Abortion Rights and Philosophical Debates

The paragraph discusses the overturning of the general right to abortion by the US Supreme Court on June 24, 2022, and the subsequent shift of decision-making to individual states, some of which have banned abortions. It introduces Judith Jarvis Thomson's 1971 essay 'A Defense of Abortion' and her approach to the topic through thought experiments. The paragraph outlines the traditional argument against abortion, which is based on the premise that a fetus is a person with a right to life, and thus abortion is morally wrong. Thomson's unique approach is highlighted as she accepts the premise that a fetus is a person but challenges the notion of an unconditional moral duty to keep it alive, focusing on unwanted pregnancies and the mother's right to self-determination.

05:04

🎻 Thomson's Thought Experiments and Analogies

This paragraph delves into four of Thomson's thought experiments and analogies: The Geiger analogy, the rapidly growing child analogy, the burglar analogy, and the human seed analogy. The Geiger analogy compares the relationship between a pregnant woman and her fetus to a situation where a person is unwillingly attached to a violinist who needs their kidneys to survive. It suggests that even if one acknowledges the violinist's (fetus's) right to life, it doesn't automatically imply a moral obligation to keep them alive at the expense of one's own well-being. The paragraph also discusses the concept of supererogatory duties, which are actions beyond what is morally obligatory, and argues that the obligation to preserve the life of a fetus falls into this category, conflicting with the mother's right to self-determination.

10:05

🚫 Challenging Absolutes in the Abortion Debate

The paragraph addresses the complexities of the abortion debate, particularly the extreme positions that either completely forbid abortion or permit it under no circumstances. Thomson uses variations of her thought experiments to illustrate that the right to life of the fetus conflicts with the mother's right to life, and in cases of self-defense, such as when the mother's life is at risk, it is morally permissible for the mother to terminate the pregnancy. The paragraph also explores the conditions under which a fetus might have a right to use the pregnant woman's body, arguing that this right does not automatically arise from the woman's causal responsibility or her voluntary acts, such as having sex or using contraception.

15:07

🌱 Unwanted Pregnancies and Moral Responsibility

This paragraph examines Thomson's views on unwanted pregnancies resulting from failed contraception and whether they confer any special responsibility or rights to the fetus. Using the burglar analogy and the human seed analogy, Thomson argues that causal responsibility for the existence of the fetus does not equate to a right to use the woman's body. She asserts that the biological relationship between mother and child does not inherently create special responsibilities unless they are explicitly or implicitly assumed. The paragraph emphasizes that Thomson's argument does not support abortion in every situation but calls for a case-by-case moral consideration, rejecting the idea of a blanket prohibition on abortion.

20:08

🤔 Criticisms and Considerations of Thomson's Argument

The final paragraph presents the two most common criticisms of Thomson's 'A Defense of Abortion.' The first criticism questions the relevance of her analogies, arguing that they are too dissimilar from actual pregnancies to provide reliable moral intuitions or to be certain of their applicability. The second criticism challenges Thomson's rejection of a general duty to help preserve another person's life, suggesting that significant sacrifices, including continuing a pregnancy, are morally obligatory. The paragraph concludes by inviting viewers to consider their own opinions on the matter and to explore further learning resources on related topics.

Keywords

💡Abortion

Abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can survive outside the womb. It is the central theme of the video, discussing the moral and legal implications of abortion rights, especially in the context of the US Supreme Court's decision to overturn the general right to an abortion. The script explores various philosophical arguments and thought experiments that contribute to the ongoing debate surrounding this topic.

💡Judith Jarvis Thomson

Judith Jarvis Thomson is a renowned American philosopher known for her work in moral philosophy. The video highlights her essay 'A Defense of Abortion,' which presents thought experiments to challenge the moral assumptions surrounding abortion. Her work is significant in the video as it provides a philosophical foundation for discussing the complexities of abortion rights.

💡Moral Philosophy

Moral philosophy, also known as ethical theory, is a branch of philosophy that explores the nature of morality, including concepts like right, wrong, good, and evil. In the video, moral philosophy is essential in examining the ethical implications of abortion, as it delves into the rights of the fetus versus the rights of the pregnant woman.

💡Thought Experiment

A thought experiment is a hypothetical scenario used to highlight or examine philosophical issues. In the video, several of Thomson's thought experiments, such as the violinist analogy and the fast-growing child analogy, are discussed to explore the moral obligations related to abortion and to challenge the notion of an unconditional duty to preserve life.

💡Roe vs. Wade

Roe vs. Wade is a landmark US Supreme Court case that established a woman's legal right to have an abortion. The video references this case in the context of its recent overturning, which has shifted the decision on abortion rights to individual states, thereby significantly impacting the legal landscape surrounding abortion in the United States.

💡Moral Status of the Fetus

The moral status of the fetus is a critical point of contention in the abortion debate. The video discusses this concept in relation to Thomson's arguments, exploring whether a fetus is considered a person with rights from the moment of conception and how this affects the moral permissibility of abortion.

💡Self-Determination

Self-determination refers to the right of an individual to make decisions about their own life. In the video, the concept is central to the discussion of a woman's right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy, especially in cases of unwanted pregnancies or those that pose a threat to her life.

💡Supererogatory

Supererogatory actions are those that go beyond the call of moral duty and are considered praiseworthy but not obligatory. The video uses the term in the context of the violinist analogy to argue that staying connected to the violinist (or carrying a fetus to term) may be morally commendable but not morally required.

💡Conservative View

In the context of the video, the conservative view on abortion holds that the fetus is a person with a right to life, and therefore abortion is morally wrong. This perspective is contrasted with the liberal view, which tends to prioritize a woman's right to choose and may permit abortion under various circumstances.

💡Liberal View

The liberal view, as discussed in the video, generally supports a woman's right to have an abortion and may argue that a fetus does not possess the same rights as a person, thus making abortion morally permissible. This view is part of the broader philosophical and political debate on the issue of abortion.

💡Self-Defense

Self-defense is the act of protecting oneself from harm. In the video, Thomson argues that a woman has the right to abort a fetus in cases where continuing the pregnancy would endanger her life, framing it as a form of self-defense and thus morally permissible.

💡Responsibility

The concept of responsibility is discussed in the video in terms of a woman's potential moral or legal obligations regarding a fetus. Thomson's thought experiments, such as the burglar analogy, explore the extent to which a woman may be held responsible for the consequences of a pregnancy, especially in cases of failed contraception.

Highlights

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned the general right to an abortion, leaving the decision to individual states.

Many states have already banned abortions, prompting a reevaluation of Judith Jarvis Thomson's philosophical work on the topic.

Judith Jarvis Thomson (1929-2020) is recognized as one of the most influential philosophers in moral philosophy, known for her thought experiments.

Thomson's 1971 essay 'A Defense of Abortion' is a seminal text in contemporary philosophy, addressing the legitimacy of abortion.

The essay was published during a time when abortion laws in the USA were highly restrictive, with the 'Roe vs. Wade' ruling coming two years later in 1973.

The 'Roe vs. Wade' ruling, which allowed abortion before the 12th week of pregnancy, was recently overturned, leading to renewed criminalization of abortion in many states.

The most common argument against abortion is based on the premise that a fetus, as a person, has a right to life and that abortion is therefore morally wrong.

Thomson's argument in her essay accepts the premise that a fetus is a person with a right to life but challenges the moral obligation to preserve that life.

Thomson introduces thought experiments to explore the moral duty to keep people alive, focusing on unwanted pregnancies.

The Geiger analogy compares an unwanted fetus to an unconscious violinist who needs the mother's body to survive, questioning the moral obligation to keep him alive.

Thomson argues that the moral obligation to keep another person alive does not necessarily extend to supererogatory duties that infringe on personal rights.

The violinist analogy is used to illustrate that the right to life of a fetus does not automatically imply a moral obligation for the pregnant woman to preserve that life.

Thomson rejects the idea that there is a general moral duty to preserve another person's life that supersedes an individual's right to self-determination.

The fast-growing child analogy and the burglar analogy further explore the limits of moral obligations and rights in the context of unwanted pregnancies.

Thomson's theory does not provide a blanket 'yes' or 'no' to the abortion debate but calls for specific moral considerations in each individual case.

Thomson's essay concludes by suggesting that very early abortions do not involve the killing of a person and are not affected by her arguments.

Common objections to Thomson's work include the perceived alienness of her analogies and the challenge to the notion of a general duty to help preserve life.

Transcripts

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court

overturned the general right to an abortion. The decision on abortion rights now rests with

the states. Many states have already banned abortions.

As early as 1971, the American philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson dealt

with the controversial topic of abortion in several thought experiments.

Given the current situation, it is worth taking another look at this classic

of contemporary philosophy. Judith Jarvis Thomson (1929-2020) is

one of the most important philosophers of recent decades, especially within

moral philosophy. She had a particular talent for inventing thought experiments.

For example, she formulated different variants of the famous trolley dilemma.

In her 1971 essay "A Defense of Abortion"

she deals with the question of whether or

not abortion is legitimate. The essay is now one of the world's most widely read and discussed

texts in contemporary philosophy. Thomson is American, and she

is publishing this paper at a time when the abortion debate

is particularly heated in the United States. At that time, abortion was either completely forbidden in almost all states of the USA

or only allowed in exceptional cases, such as incest, after rape

or when the life of the woman was in danger. In 1973, the Supreme Court issued a ruling

that meant that abortion before the 12th week of pregnancy

could no longer be criminalized, even if the individual states wanted it. This is

the famous "Roe vs. Wade" ruling, which was overturned a few weeks ago.

Since then, many US states have criminalized abortion again. And not only in

the USA, but also in many other countries worldwide, abortion is punishable or only

permitted in absolutely exceptional cases. You can find an overview of the current

abortion laws worldwide in the information box below.

But what actually speaks against abortion? The most common argument against abortion

is as follows: P1: A person has

the right to life and it is therefore morally wrong to willfully cause his or her death.

P2: A fetus is a person and has a right to life.

It follows K1:

Deliberately causing the death of a fetus is morally wrong. P3: An abortion

intentionally causes the death of the fetus. So:

K2: abortion is morally wrong. This is a valid

argument. This means that the conclusion follows from the 3 premises. If the premises

are true, the conclusion is also true. In order to reject the conclusion,

one must therefore reject one of the three premises. The 3rd premise cannot be rejected. It

includes the definition of abortion. As soon as one has arrived at conclusion 1,

conclusion 2 can no longer be avoided. So let's consider premises 1 and 2.

In the classic abortion debate, what is disputed is premise 2, more specifically

the moral status of the fetus. Either one affirms that the fetus is a person

and holds abortion to be morally wrong (conservative view), or one denies

that the fetus is a person and holds abortion to be morally permissible (liberal view). If

you are interested in the discussion about the moral status of embryos in particular,

I recommend my video "The SKIP arguments and their criticism".

Now what is interesting and new about Thomson's argument is that it

accepts premise 2. Although she also considers this premise to be false, she gives

the premise to the anti-abortionists, thereby conceding that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception.

How can the argument be refuted on this assumption?

There is nothing left but to refute premise 1.

And that's exactly what Thomson tries to do in her essay with several thought experiments and analogies.

In her essay, Thomson presents several thought experiments or analogies

that deal with the question of whether there is actually an unconditional moral

duty to keep people alive. What is important here is that her argument

only refers to unwanted pregnancies, for example due to the failure of contraceptives or after

rape, or to pregnancies which endanger the life of the mother.

It is even more important that she does not

want to depict the situation of the respective pregnancy 1:1 with her thought experiments and analogies. Rather, she is concerned with

working out and analyzing the core of the arguments against abortion.

Through her analogies, Thomson seeks

to illustrate and evaluate implicit normative guidelines, rationale, and principles of anti-abortionists. In this video I want to go into 4 of her

thought experiments and analogies: The Geiger analogy, the rapidly

growing child analogy, the burglar analogy and the human seed analogy.

Imagine the following situation: “You wake up in the morning and find yourself

lying in a bed, back to back, with an unconscious violinist.

A famous unconscious violinist. He's been diagnosed with terminal kidney disease

and the Society of Music Lovers has checked all available medical records

and found that only you have the right blood type to help him. That's why she

kidnapped you, and last night the fiddler's bloodstream was hooked up to yours

so your kidneys can be used to detoxify his blood as well as yours. The

hospital director is now telling you: 'Look, we're sorry the Society of

Music Lovers did this to you - we would never have allowed it if we

had known. But they did it once, and now the violinist is hooked up to you. Disconnecting her

would mean killing him. But don't worry, it's only for nine months.

By then he will have recovered from his illness and can be safely uncoupled from you.'”

The violinist, according to this analogy, is the unwanted fetus in the womb and

you the pregnant woman. For nine months, the violinist cannot survive without you,

as can the child growing in the womb. This thought experiment aims to show that

even if one recognizes that the violinist is a person and has a right to life,

it does not intuitively follow that one has a moral obligation

to keep him alive. It would not be morally wrong to bring about his death.

Indeed, staying connected to him for 9 months, 9 years, or even your entire life

to keep him alive would go beyond a moral duty.

Such action is called supererogatory in philosophy.

Supererogatory duties exceed what is morally obligatory or their

fulfillment exceeds what is reasonable for the individual. Such achievements are considered

good and even highly commendable, but not morally demandable.

Accordingly, it is morally permissible not to perform such duties. Thomson does

not use the term supererogatory in her text, but speaks of "very good or

outstanding Samaritan". It means the same thing. Geiger's thought experiment makes it clear

that the ban on abortion is about the duty to keep another person

alive with the help of one's own body. The fetus's right to life can only be protected with the help

of the mother's body. Opponents of abortion describe this duty not only

as a moral duty, but even demand it as a legal duty

. However , according to Thomson, nobody should be obliged - neither morally nor legally -

to fulfill such a supererogatory obligation .

This obligation collides with the mother's right to self-determination.

In the abortion debate, the general question is then often asked, "Which is more important:

the physical self-determination of the pregnant woman or the life of the child?" Thomson rejects a general

answer to this question. Rather, one should weigh up in each individual case which

right prevails in each case. The fetus's right to life or the mother's right to self-determination.

Geiger's thought experiment illustrates very impressively that even if one accepts

that the fetus is a person and has a full right to life

does not necessarily imply that the pregnant woman has a moral obligation

to carry it to term and thereby keep it alive. Thus, accepting the premise that the fetus

is a person and has a right to life is not sufficient to conclude

that every woman has a moral duty to preserve the life of that fetus.

The principle does not apply in every case. One could now object that in the

violinist analogy someone was kidnapped against his will and hooked up to the violinist. The case

corresponds to a pregnancy after a rape. If the kidnapped person

is allowed to uncouple the violinist, then a raped pregnant woman is also allowed to abort the fetus.

So you could make an exception to the abortion ban after a rape. But

Thomson disagrees with this objection. Because if you grant the fetus an unconditional right to life,

then this does not diminish or disappear because it was conceived through rape.

In fact, extreme opponents of abortion do not accept such an exception. They consider

abortion to be morally wrong under any circumstances, even if the pregnancy

resulted from rape and even if it shortens the life of the mother.

It could also be argued that, unlike Geiger's thought experiment,

the pregnant woman does have a moral duty to keep the fetus alive

. But then another argument would be necessary. Simply saying that the fetus

is a person with a right to life and inferring that the woman

has a moral obligation to preserve it is not enough. In the course of her essay, Thomson varies

the violinist's thought experiment several times and also draws on further analogies.

A variation on the violinist analogy goes as follows:

"So there you are in bed with the violinist and the hospital director

tells you, 'This is all very unfortunate and you have my deepest sympathy, but unfortunately

this is putting an extra burden on yours kidneys and you will

die within this month. But you still have to stay where you are. Because to disconnect you would be

to kill an innocent violinist, and that's murder, and that's illegal.'”

Similarly, the fast-growing child analogy works:

“Suppose you're stuck in a tiny house with a growing child. We're talking

a tiny little house, and a very fast growing kid. - You already have

your back against the wall of the house, and in a few minutes you will be crushed. The child, on the other hand, is

not crushed; if nothing is done to stop it from growing, it will hurt itself,

but eventually it will just blast open the house and leave free.”

In both analogies, Thomson draws attention to the fact that the pregnant woman is

also a person with a right to life. Mother and fetus have the same

right to life. The fetus's right to life collides with the mother's right to life.

How should a decision be made in such a case? It is perfectly clear to Thomson that the mother

is allowed to kill the fetus to save her own life. It is a case of

self-defence. This is morally permissible. Third parties should not be forbidden to help

the pregnant woman in such a self-defense situation either . It follows at the same time that the extreme

position that forbids abortion under any circumstances must be wrong.

But what about the much more frequent cases of unwanted pregnancy

that are neither caused by rape nor endanger the life of the mother?

According to Thomson, abortion is unjust killing only if the fetus

has a right to use the pregnant woman's body. But when does the fetus have such a right?

Thomson thinks there are 2 possibilities: 1.) If the pregnant woman grants the fetus

such a right, ie in the case of a desired pregnancy.

And 2.) If

the pregnant woman is jointly responsible for the existence of the fetus, i.e. if the pregnancy

is the result of a voluntary act. That the second option does not

necessarily give the fetus the right to use the pregnant woman's body is illustrated by Thomson with

two analogies: the burglar analogy and the analogy of the human seed.

The burglar analogy goes like this: "If it's stuffy in the room and I

open a window to let the air out and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, '

Oh, he can stay now, he has a right to her the use of her house - for she

shares responsibility for his presence there, having voluntarily done something which

enabled him to come in, knowing full well that there are such things as burglars

and that burglars do break in. ' This statement would be even more absurd if I

had put extra bars outside my windows just to deter burglars from getting in

, and if a burglar got into the house only because of broken bars.

The statement remains just as absurd if we imagine that it is not a burglar who climbs in,

but an innocent person who stumbles or falls in.”

The analogy of human seeds works in a similar way:

“Human seeds blow through the air like pollen, and when you your If you open a window, one of the seeds may

fly in and take root in your carpet or upholstery. You

don't want kids, so you outfit your windows with fine-mesh screens, the very best money

can buy. However, as can happen, and very, very rarely

does, one of the grids is broken and a seed blows in

and takes root. Does the now evolving person plant have a right to use your

house? Certainly not - despite the fact that you opened your windows voluntarily, you

knowingly owned carpets and upholstered furniture and you knew that grids are sometimes defective.”

Both analogies are talking about unwanted pregnancies

as a result of failed contraception. In both cases one would be causally jointly

responsible for the consequences that occur, but no rights result from this.

Applied to voluntary sexual intercourse, this means that sex is just as normal a part of life as airing

. According to this, women are not obliged to use extraordinary

means such as abstinence or sterilization to prevent pregnancy. If contraceptives fail, the fetus has

no right to use her body, despite the woman's causal co-responsibility for its existence, and

the woman has not granted the fetus this right because of the use of contraceptives.

So abortion after failed contraception is morally permissible.

But doesn't the pregnant woman have a special responsibility

towards the fetus as she does towards the violinist, burglar and human seed?

Thomson says no. The biological mother-child relationship does not give rise to any special responsibility.

In her opinion, one only has a special responsibility

if one assumes it expressly or tacitly.

It is important that Thomson's argument does not legitimize every abortion.

She explicitly does not say that abortion is always allowed.

Thomson's theory does not offer a general "yes" or "no" in the abortion debate,

but remains open to a specific moral consideration in each individual case.

As she writes at the end of her essay: "It [the theory] takes into account and supports

our feeling that, for example, a sick and deeply frightened fourteen-year-old schoolgirl

who is pregnant as a result of rape may of course

choose to have an abortion and that any law that excludes this is an insane law.

It also takes into account and supports our feeling that in other cases resorting to

abortion is even clearly reprehensible. It would be reprehensible for a woman

to ask for an abortion, and reprehensible for a doctor to perform it

when she is seven months pregnant and only wants the abortion to make up for the annoying postponement

avoiding a trip abroad.” According to Thomson, however, abortion should

not be categorically forbidden. And at the very end of her essay

, Thomson recalls that she was pretending all along that the fetus

was a person from the moment of conception. And writes: "A very early abortion is certainly not

the killing of a person and is thus not affected by anything I have stated here."

At the end of this video, let's take a quick look at the two most

frequently raised objections to Thomson's " Defending Abortion”:

The most common objection is to Thomson's numerous analogies:

Compared to pregnancy, Thomson's analogies are too alien and bizarre

for us to have any reliable moral intuitions about the cases and/or be

certain that they actually are transferred to pregnancy. They

therefore have little argumentative force. Also, they are not

adequately fitting analogies. The Geiger analogy, for example, is

not an appropriate analogy to abortion, since abortion kills the fetus,

but only lets Geiger die. At best, Thomson's analogy can justify letting someone die,

not actively killing someone. As mentioned at the beginning, Thomson

does not want to depict the situation of a concrete pregnancy 1:1, but rather to use

analogies to highlight and criticize weak points in the arguments of the opponents of abortion.

The second objection is directed against Thomson's view that there is no

general duty to help that requires the preservation of another person's life.

Critics object that there is a duty to make significant sacrifices in

order to save a person's life. Since only the pregnant woman can provide this survival aid during pregnancy

, she is obliged to continue the pregnancy,

even after rape or if this endangers her own life.

Applied to the analogies, this means that one should not uncouple the violinist,

nor remove the fast-growing child, the burglar, or the human seed.

With her thought experiments, Thomson challenges not only those anti-abortionists who

believe abortion should be avoided under any circumstances, but also - on closer inspection -

those pro-abortionists who believe abortion should be allowed under all circumstances.

What is your opinion on this controversial topic? Convinced by

Thomson's thought experiments? Do you find their analogies helpful or inappropriate?

Feel free to write your opinion on this in the comments below.

You can now expand your knowledge

with the Quizlet learning sets "The SKIP arguments and their criticism",

"Moral status of embryos" and "The German Embryo Protection Act" . Have fun learning and see you soon!