What is Judith Jarvis Thomson’s defense of abortion?
Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion – CRITICAL EXPOSITION The goal of Judith Jarvis Thomson in her defense of abortion is to sway the ideas of those who are against abortion by challenging the arguments they give for thinking so. She begins by stating a premise. “For the sake of the argument” a human embryo is a person.
What did Judith Jarvis Thomson do?
Judith Jarvis Thomson in 2010. A renowned thinker, she created new fields of inquiry in moral philosophy. Credit... Judith Jarvis Thomson, who created new fields of inquiry in philosophy through her writings on abortion and a moral thought experiment that she named the “Trolley Problem,” died on Nov. 20 at her home in Cambridge, Mass.
Who is Judith Thomson?
For the playwright, see Judith Thompson. Judith Jarvis Thomson (October 4, 1929 – November 20, 2020) was an American philosopher who studied and worked on ethics and metaphysics. She is credited with naming, developing, and initiating the extensive literature on the trolley problem first posed by Philippa Foot.
What is JJ Thomson's position on abortion?
Terms in this set (28) T/F: J.J. Thomson believes that abortion is never morally permissible because the fetus has a right to life. False- She believes it is permissible sometimes even though the fetus has a right to life.
See more
Early life and education
Thomson was born in New York City, on October 4, 1929. Her mother Helen (Vostrey) Jarvis was an English teacher and her father Theodore Jarvis was an accountant. Thomson's mother died when she was six.
Career
Thomson was a visiting professor at the University of Pittsburgh (1976), UC Berkeley School of Law (1983), and Yale Law School (1982, 1984, 1985).
Philosophical views
Thomson's main areas of research were moral philosophy and metaphysics. In moral philosophy she has made significant contributions to meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics .
Why is Christie's article not persuasive?
The point of Christie’s article was not to convince others that abortion is wrong and that it should be stopped, but rather to persuade others to consider the route of adoption if possible. Because adoption is highly emotional and focused on relationships, there are not many statistics and hard facts that can persuade others to adopt, rather there are personal stories, like Christie’s, that change perspectives and motivate people to choose adoption over abortion as well as inspire families to adopt children in
Why is Valarie Tarico for abortion?
She says that it is one of the biggest decisions in life to bring a child into the world. She then goes on and explains ten reasons why she is for abortion. Her reasons for abortion are; limiting the amount of time a woman has a child is “female empowerment and equality”, pregnancies are better when they are spaced out, parenting is a hard job , having a child that was expected is better for couples , the process of reproduction is not perfect , morality is about the health of those who can feel, birth control can be ineffective, she believes in fresh starts, people have the responsibility
What does Michael Tooley believe about abortion?
He debates that abortion during any stage of pregnancy should be accepted with his reason being that a fetus does not have “a serious right to life”. In his work "Abortion and Infanticide", he discuss "what characteristics [a fetus] must have in order to be considered a person." He believes that a person’s identity is progressively attained, and the fetus is not a person until birth.
Is abortion a contraversal subject?
This topic has many view points considering whether or not the fetus is human, and if so whether or not it has a right to life. Though a heavily debated issue. many would rather sweep this subject under the rug. Abortion itself is nothing to be ignored though.
Who said it's a right not to be killed unjustly?
As Thomas Nagel, professor emeritus of philosophy and law at New York University, put it, “ She expresses very clearly the essentially negative character of the right to life, which is that it’s a right not to be killed unjustly, and not a right to be provided with everything necessary for life.”. Professor Thomson advanced a theory ...
Who invented the hypothetical case?
Professor Thomson, who taught philosophy for most of her career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, made her imagination her most powerful intellectual tool. She invented her best-known hypothetical case in “ A Defense of Abortion ,” a 1971 essay widely regarded as a classic in contemporary American philosophy.
When did Professor Thomson write about the trolley problem?
Professor Thomson’s engagement with the Trolley Problem underwent a remarkable reversal in 2008, when she wrote a paper arguing that she had been wrong about the bystander case — that the bystander was not, in fact, morally permitted to turn the switch.
Who was the philosopher who defended abortion?
Judith Jarvis Thomson, Philosopher Who Defended Abortion, Dies at 91. She wrote some of the most influential papers in contemporary American philosophy and prompted debates about urgent moral concerns in everyday life. Judith Jarvis Thomson in 2010. A renowned thinker, she created new fields of inquiry in moral philosophy.
Is the duty not to kill more stringent than the duty to save lives?
The comparison, Professor Foot claimed, showed that “negative duties,” like the duty not to kill, are more stringent than “positive duties,” like the duty to save lives. In a series of increasingly complex alternative scenarios, Professor Thomson dug into this conundrum and made it into a major philosophical subject.
What is the anti-abortionist argument?
Assuming the personhood of the fetus, the anti-abortionist argument proceeds thus: Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happens in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person’s right to life is stronger and more stringent than ...
Is it morally permissible to have a violinist stay attached to your body?
While it would be kind of you to let the violinist stay attached to your body, almost no one would think you are morally obligated to do so. This suggests that abortion is morally permissible in cases of rape (and also that the mere fact that the violinist is a person doesn’t preclude the permissibility of abortion.)
Can you kill something unjustly?
You do not kill something unjustly if you kill it so you don’t have to share your kidneys with it. So the argument against abortion must show it is unjust killing. In the case of rape, no permission to use your body has been granted and thus the killing of the fetus is justified.
Is abortion justified in cases where the mother's life is in danger?
But T argues that cases of self-defense are clearly not murder. So abortion is justified in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. The abortion debate often focuses on what a 3 rd party (a physician for example) may do when a woman asks for an abortion (since she probably can’t safely perform the procedure herself.)
Do anti-abortionists work for GS laws?
To be consistent, anti-abortionists should work for GS laws. And if you ask us to keep you from being a GS (not remain pregnant), we should probably help you if you don’t want to be in bed with the violinist for 9 months. Section 7 – Even if the fetus is a person the impermissibility of abortion doesn’t follow.
Why does Beckwith contend that in an unwanted pregnancy the reluctant father has involuntary obligations to his offspring?
Beckwith contends that in an unwanted pregnancy the reluctant father has involuntary obligations to his offspring because of “the fact that he engaged in an act, sexual intercourse, which he fully realised could result in the creation of another human being, although he took every precaution to avoid such a result”.
Who is the philosopher who wrote the essay on abortion and infanticide?
Another paper, easily searchable from the web, Philosophers on abortion and infanticide by philosopher Frank Bouchier-Hayes summarizes Thompson’s ‘famous violinist’ argument and responses. Bouchier-Hayes starts: Rebecca Kiessling.
Does Thomson believe that a person is present at conception?
She does not, however , believe that a human being or person is present at conception. Despite the latter statement, Thomson is prepared to allow, for the purposes of her argument, the premiss that the foetus is a person from the time of conception.’.
Is a hunter liable for a bush movement?
A hunter is criminally liable if he shoots towards a movement in the bush, not knowing whether a human or deer caused the movement. Actually, it’s even stronger than that. The onus is on the pro-aborts to prove the claim that the unborn really is not a human baby, contrary to Scripture and science.
Is killing an innocent human being wrong?
The first is that the unborn is a human being, but the second is that killing an innocent human being is wrong. These premises are unambiguously taught in Scripture—see Abortion: The answer’s in Genesis. But evolutionary teaching has caused many people to deny its authority.
Do pro-abortionists concede the unborn?
Indeed, they will not concede the humanity of the unborn even in principle as Thomson does, at least not yet while the majority of the population still balks at killing innocent humans.