Exam 43: Judith Jarvis Thomson

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -Thomson claims that even though you ought to let the violinist use your kidneys for the one hour he needs, we should not conclude that:

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -In Thomson's view, the right to life amounts to:

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -Thomson claims that having an abortion in the seventh month simply to avoid postponing a trip abroad would be:

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -In Thomson's view, we are morally required to be:

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -On what premise does most opposition to abortion rest, according to Thomson? What does Thomson think of this premise? What role does it play in her argument?

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -Explain the different accounts of the right to life that Thomson discusses. Which does she ultimately decide is correct? Do you find her account plausible? Why or why not?

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -Thomson claims that abortion is unjust in cases where:

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -Thomson claims that the right to life amounts to the right not to be killed.

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -What is Thomson's final verdict on abortion? In what cases does she believe it is morally permissible? Do you agree with her? Defend your answer.

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -Thomson claims that directly killing an innocent person:

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -Describe Thomson's violinist case. What verdict does she give on this case? What implications does she think it has for the debate about abortion?

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -Thomson argues that no one is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them.

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -According to Thomson, abortion is unjust in cases where the fetus has a right to the use of the mother's body

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -What is the right to life, according to Thomson? Under what circumstances does Thomson think it is permissible to kill someone who has a right to life? Do you find her account plausible?

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -What is a Good Samaritan, according to Thomson? What relevance does the notion have to her argument concerning abortion?

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -On Thomson's view, if a human being has any just, prior claim to anything at all, he has a just, prior claim to his own:

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -Thomson argues that we are not morally required to be Good Samaritans to one another.

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -What is the point of the case of the violinist? What does Thomson conclude from the case? Do you agree with her? Why or why not?

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -Thomson claims that in cases of abortion, the mother has the right to secure the death of the fetus.

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct. According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible. -Thomson claims that a woman gives the fetus the right to the use of her body in any case in which: