Thompson And Marquis Analysis

Judith Jarvis Thompson and Don Marquis both have markedly different views on the topic of abortion. Thompson generally argues that there are cases where abortion may be morally permissible, due to the rights of the mother, while Marquis argues that abortion is almost always morally wrong, except under extraordinary circumstances, because the fetus has a future life. In this paper, I will evaluate the arguments of both parties, as well as identify what premises, if any, they both agree on. In addition, I will supply my own reasoning for why I believe that Marquis presents the more successful argument. The general philosophical problem discussed between Thompson and Marquis is whether or not abortion is morally permissible, and, if so,
She then provides her “Violinist Argument,” where a person has been kidnapped and connected to the circulatory system of a famous violinist. The violinist has a disease that can only be cured if their blood is filtered through the kidneys of the “donor” for nine months. Thompson argues that, while doing so would be a very nice gesture, it is not expected of the donor and therefor it would not be morally wrong if the person decided to unplug his or herself from the violinist and cause the violinist to die. (353) Thompson bases this off of the premise that doing so would not be violating his right to life, but would simply be denying him the use of the donor’s body, which is something that he does not have any rights
In this argument, a woman buys the best mesh screens (a metaphor for birth control) that are designed to keep out the seeds, but as it is possible, a screen is defective and lets a people-seed into the home. This, being a metaphor for voluntary intercourse where a woman is aware of the inherent risks of pregnancy, argues that, even though a woman may become pregnant unintentionally, that does not necessarily mean that the fetus has a right to the body of the mother. She uses an analogy of an intruder to show this: just because a woman opens a window, knowing that someone could enter through it, does not rob her of her right to rid her house of an intruder if one would happen to enter. This is likened to rape, where a woman would retain her right to remove a fetus from her body. Thompson identifies that some opponents of her argument would say that someone could simply choose to live in a home with bare floors and furniture or a home with sealed doors and windows to avoid the threat of a people-seed, but Thompson then likens such an arrangement to choosing to get a hysterectomy, just so a woman can safeguard herself against the possibility of being raped and impregnated. Clearly, this would be an extreme measure to take for the sake of