Critical Analysis: Judith Jarvis Thomson's 'In Defense of Abortion'

This assignment presents a detailed analysis of Judith Jarvis Thomson's 'In Defense of Abortion.' The student's response addresses Thomson's views on fetal personhood, her perspective on the pro-life argument, and the use of analogies. The analysis covers the meaning and effectiveness of analogies like the violinist, acorn, and Good Samaritan, assessing their logical coherence and potential weaknesses. The student explores Thomson's concept of responsibility, its acceptance, and potential problems, while also identifying connections to ethical theories like utilitarianism and deontology. The assignment concludes with the student's personal stance on the moral and legal aspects of abortion, including potential modifications to existing laws and reflections on the most challenging objections to their position.

Surname1
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
1.
a) Does Thomson herself think that the fetus is a person at the moment of conception?
Thomson herself does not think of fetus as a person the moment of the conception as this is clearly
illustrated in her sentiments when says, a very early abortion is surely not killing a person. Though earlier
she seemed to support the notion that abortion of the fetus is murder which was mainly based on building
her arguments on whether abortion is morally right or wrong. She intends to agree with both opponents
and proponents of abortion so as to have an in-depth view of what abortion entails in relation to the fetus
and the mother. She even goes ahead to question whether the mother has the right to make a choice of
whether she wants the fetus in her body or not. She expounds on exceptions of conception in cases such
as rape and questions whether the mother can be allowed to make decision over the fate of the fetus, she
examines the views of opponents of abortion at the same time who she says that only stick their argument
on the premise that abortion is immoral and the circumstances does not matter.
b) What is Thomson’s view of the tendency to choose a point where "before this point the fetus is not
a person and after this point, the fetus is a person.
Thomson believes that a fetus become a person depending with the choices made by the woman at the
time of conception. According to her, a fetus becomes person the moment the mother accepts the
responsibility of the pregnancy or the moment the woman fails to use birth control measures. According
to her the woman has no special responsibility to the fetus simply because of the biological relationship.
Thomson expounds that the woman has the choice to choose at what point the fetus becomes a person by
either choosing to accept the responsibility or not.

Surname2
c) How does Thomson answer the anti-abortion argument that the fetus is what naturally develops into
the baby and into the child or that there is a noticeable continuous development here that ends up in the
human being?
Thomson in response to this premise thinks that the argument is valid but not critically argued and
believes that the argument is shallow. She compares the argument of a fetus presumed to be a person at
the time of conception to development of an acorn into an oak tree which does not follow that acorns are
oak trees. She terms the arguments of the anti-abortion as slippery arguments which they heavily and
uncritically rely on. She agrees that the idea of drawing a line as to when a fetus becomes a person is dim
and also to the argument that a fetus becomes a person at the time of birth.
d) After granting, for the sake of argument that the fetus is a person from conception and should not be
aborted, she examines the standard pro-life argument (p. 145) and this leads to many analogies that press
a point. What is that? Does she just, simply, say all abortion is morally permissible? Does she say all
abortions are choices that ought to be respected and should not be questioned morally?
Thomson argues that in as much as the woman has the right and choice to determine what happens to
her body but the right to life of a person outweighs her right to choose what she wants when it comes to a
person’s life (Medoff 580). She does not support the premise that all abortions are choices that ought to
be respected but instead she examines different circumstances to evaluate which situation outweighs the
other before a choice is made. She illustrates her story on morality using the Good Samaritan story and
affirms that nobody is morally required to make huge or even exceptional sacrifices to ensure that
someone else lives but it’s a choice a person makes. According to her right to life in some occasions
outweighs the right to make choices as one is left without choices to make.
2) Explain the meaning of all analogies and metaphors Thomson used (beginning with the violinist);
what was her point with each analogy and how does it contribute support to her very careful position.

Surname3
Thomson uses several analogies and metaphors to explain her arguments. She compares the situation
in which one is kidnapped to save the life of a violinist as to whether they have a choice to make once the
violinist life depends on them with a situation where the woman has the right to make a choice about what
happens to her body but the right to life of a person outweighs that choice and is more stringent. The two
situations have different issues but aim at the same solution. It examines whether the person’s right to
choose freedom outweighs the violinist’s life whose is also considered as a person.
She compares the point at which a fetus can be referred to a person with development of an acorn into
an oak tree. She compares the similarities between the two different circumstances which are not related
in any way to bring out her point based on her comparison. According to her the fetus can be considered
as a person at any point but does not follow that the fetus is considered as a person by that mere
argument. Similar to an acorn during its development it does not follow that it is an oak tree.
She also compares the story of the Good Samaritan with the moral responsibility that people have
when making choices over issues involving abortion. She illustrates how the Good Samaritan made a
choice but affirms that it was not his responsibility the same way a woman has no social responsibility
simply because the fetus is biologically attached to her.
3) Do the supporting analogies taken together logically lead necessarily to her position?
Yes the supporting analogies logically leads to her position because the comparison brings clearly the
different circumstances that choices have to be made and by whom. The comparison brings out the clear
reasons for a choice and reasons against another choice. According to her she embraces both arguments
and the analogies illustrate both sides of argument on the topic of abortion.
4) Are there weak analogies? Which one? In what way?
Yes. Many arguments rely on analogy to bring out the intended meaning or object. In some situations
two things or ideas that are compared aren’t actually alike in relevant aspect hence creating weak

Surname4
analogies. Some situations contain completely different topics or aspects to those things or ideas they are
being compared to hence failing to bring out the intended outcome.
In this case, the story of the Good Samaritan as a weak analogy in that the comparison is not clear and
the aspects of the comparison are kind of far-fetched. The comparison is kind of complicated to
comprehend.
5) In the article, Thomson has a view of 'responsibility'. Do you accept this view? Is there a /are there
problem/s with this view? What problems and why are they problems?
To some extent I agree with the view, the fact that the woman has a biological relationship with the
fetus does not necessarily mean that she has the responsibility of bearing the child. There are
circumstances that should be considered before the responsibility is solely passed to the mother. In some
situations it could be a rape case, such pregnancy would be unwanted by some people or even the
pregnancy poses danger to the life of the woman, in such cases choice has to be made and presumption of
responsibility suspended.
6) Do you see any connections between this issue and any of the theories taken up in class?
(Utilitarian, Deontological, Natural Law, Virtue Theory?
Yes there is a connection between this issue and the four theories learnt in class.
Deontological theory principles are majorly based on conformity of an action to some law, abortion
matters conforms to some law depending with the legal system. Virtue theory guides on morality issues
just like in this case abortion is viewed as morally wrong. Natural law relates to the issue of abortion as to
the right to life each person has no matter the circumstance. Utilitarian focus on the consequences of an
action as to whether they are right or wrong, similarly there is a debate as to whether abortion is right or
wrong (Medoff 104).

Surname5
7) Do you find Thomson's argument and position compelling or convincing? Why or why not?
I find Thomson’s argument convincing, this is because we have to critically examine every situation
before arriving at a decision. According to her the opponents of abortion shallowly argue about their
position without critically looking the matter. There are circumstances when choices have to be made
considering different situations even if a person’s life is in line. Therefore her position is open to any
possibility and is not fixed on any premise like the opponents of abortion who don’t care whether the
conception is a result of rape or even puts the life of the mother in danger.
8) Where are you now on this moral issue? Is your legal position the same or different? Do you accept
or do you have problems about where the law is now on abortion? Elaborate. Would you modify the law?
How would you if you could or have the power to modify it?
On the moral issue, no one has moral responsibility when they can make a choice in circumstances
that really requires choices to be made. My legal position on the matter has slightly changed; the law
should embrace few circumstances on which abortion can be allowed. Different legal systems differ on
the laws regarding abortion but the law should adjust and be open to consider some circumstances under
which abortion can be permissible. Yes I would modify the law. I would amend the law to reflect the
current practices of abortion and consult with relevant departments and sectors on the laws that can be
changed to make the laws on abortion flexible.
9) What was eye-opening for you?
The fact that in some situations people have to think critically and consider the choice that outweighs
other choice in different circumstances.
10) What would be the most challenging objection to your position and why?
The most challenging objection would be from the critics of abortion who are like to give a blind eye
to any circumstances that would require abortion to be permissible. Most of these opponents base their

Surname6
arguments on their faiths and would not consider the state of anything whether the woman is in danger or
not. Their position is not critically examined but rather shallowly argued without any clear reasons.
Work cited
Medoff, Marshall H. "Mill's Extraordinary Utilitarian Moral Theory." 2016.
Medoff, Marshall H. "State Abortion Policies, Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider Laws, and
Abortion Demand." Review of Policy Research, vol. 27, no. 5, 2010, pp. 577-594.

Surname7