Famous Violinist Arguments Against Abortion

A. The ‘Conservative Argument’ is based on two premises: it is wrong to kill an innocent human, and fetuses are innocent humans; therefore abortion is wrong (Singer, 1979, p.107). Whilst this argument is valid, there have been many attempts to show that the second premise is wrong. The primary method to show this has been to find the “moral dividing line” between fetus and human, most notably viability, when the fetus can exist independently (Singer, 1979, p.107-108). This main objection is flawed as countries have different levels of technology, which influences the age a fetus can be independent, meaning for developing countries the line drawn would be far later than developed countries (Singer, 1979, p.109). This is substantial as location
Due to boldily autonomy and the clear distinction between a fetus and a rational, self-aware person, abortion is morally permissible practically whenever the mother chooses it, given it is done humanely. Most people would agree that in cases where the woman did not choose pregnancy, like rape, abortion should be morally permissible due to bodily autonomy and the immorality of asking someone to undergo psychological and physical trauma due to something beyond their control. This is supported by the Famous Violinist argument which explains that women, especially those who are pregnant due to rape, are not morally obligated to endure this immense sacrifice, even if it would be nice to do so (Singer, 1975, p.113-114). Whilst Thomson’s argument has fallen under criticism based on utilitarianism, these arguments are countered by Singer’s deconstruction of the Conservative Argument and its flawed perception that human life is inherently special, which demonstrates the moral permissibility of most abortions. The Conservative Argument’s premise that a fetus is an innocent human can mean two things: either the fetus is a person that has self-awareness and rational thought or a fetus is a member of the human species (Singer, 1975, p.117). Clearly, the first argument is false and highlights the backwardness of a fetus having more rights than a fully formed, self-aware person. As for the second argument, it demonstrates the hypocrisy of valuing the life of a human fetus more than a
A primary example of innate, universal knowledge used by rationalists is principles of logic such as the idea that “what is, is” or that something cannot “both be and not be” (Wright, 2005, p.114). Whilst it is true that these ideas are widely accepted across cultures, as Locke points out, there will always be some people who do not believe it, such as children (Wright, 2005, p.114). This may be due to an inability to understand but it still wholly proves that this knowledge is not inborn or innate. From this it is obvious that similar arguments for things far less universally accepted like morals or God’s existence are also flawed. Clearly, the existence of atheists and signficant variation in concepts of right and wrong proves God and morals cannot be innate truths (Wright, 2005, p.116). Therefore, as Locke highlights, the argument for universal knowledge is immensely inaccurate and provides no justification for innate