Most arguments put forth against abortion come from the concept that the fetus is a human being and a person from the very moment of being conceived. Following this logic, the same must be said about the development of an acorn into an oak tree, thus suggesting that such an argument is a slippery slope that allows for the criticism of the argument against abortion. However, if one acknowledges the idea that a fetus is a person since the time of its conception, then one cannot disagree with the argument that a right to life is universal to all humans. Hence, the fetus has the right to live and shall not be aborted. Undoubtedly, the mother has the freedom to make decisions as to what should take place in her and in her body; everyone can agree to that. Although, undoubtedly, a person’s right to live is more significant and the right to make decisions about her body, and so outweighs it. From this argument, a conclusion follows, a fetus may not be killed because they are a person, regardless of what the mother wants. In opposition to such a conclusion, Thomson proposed an interesting thought experiment.
In her moral philosophy essay, “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thomson implements thought experiments to argue in support of abortion based on two core premises. The first premise is the fetus’s right to live. The second premise is that such a right does not diminish the pregnant individual’s right to have control over their bodies (Thomson 47). Therefore, induced abortion is morally permissible, however controversial such an argument may be. The thought experiment involving a violinist is one of the most memorable in the essay, enabling the audience to imagine a hypothetical situation to further the discussion regarding the moral permissibility of abortion. Even though the violinist has the right to live, his right is not superior to the right of another person who is being used to sustain the well-being of a violinist.
The thought experiment that Thomson explores involves a person waking up one day and finding themselves connected to an unconscious violinist, who seems to be a famous person although diagnosed with life-threatening kidney disease (48). The person to which the violinist is connected with a plug has been found the only individual with the right blood type to facilitate an improvement of the violinist’s health and cure the disease. Therefore, the people responsible for the violinist kidnapped the only donner and connected the violinist’s circulatory system to the persons’ so that their healthy kidneys can work for extracting the poison from the unconscious violinist’s blood. If the violinist is unplugged from his donor, he dies. However, in nine months, the violinist will recover from the disease, and the two people can be safely disconnected from one another and left free to live their separate lives.
Thomson’s argument based on the thought experiment with the violinist is that it is morally acceptable and permissible for the person who has been kidnapped and used as the violinist’s life support to unplug themselves from the unconscious violinist (48). Even though the unplugging would result in immediate death, there is a certain right to life limitations which do not include the right to use the body of another individual without their consent or agreement to it. Thus, when the donor unplugs themselves from the violinist, they do not go against the right to life but rather prevent him from having something to which he was not entitled, such as using someone else’s body to sustain his own. If a person decides to remain plugged to the violinist for nine months and help cure the disease, they do so purely of their own kindness and not because they owe the violinist the right to use the body of another person for recovery. The importance of the argument set forth by Thomson is that every person that finds themselves ‘connected’ to another human, a fetus specifically, is not responsible for the life of another if one’s life and freedom are at stake (49).
Therefore, the violinist’s argument allows one to state that abortion is not in violation of a fetus’s right to life. Instead, an abortion deprives the fetus of the unwilling use of a woman’s body to facilitate the supporting life functions for a long period of nine months. In the argument, although the fetus has the right to life, it is not entitled to the right to use the body of a woman who did not consent to it. Thus, by choosing to end her pregnancy, a woman does not violate the right of a fetus but rather separates herself from the process of being used as a ‘vehicle’ or a ‘tool’ to sustain the life of another human, thus causing the fetus to die.
Some points of criticism are in place concerning the violinist’s thought experiment. For example, the author makes a false parallel between the act of having sex and being connected to a violinist after being kidnapped. Even if one considers rape as a reason for a pregnancy, the percentage of such pregnancies is lower compared to consensual conception. In addition, Thomson fails to consider the moral importance of the relationship between children and parents. Thus, if a violinist was a person’s two-year-old son, the thought experiment would have a different outcome as a child could not have threatened the autonomy of a person because parenting requires some sacrifices. Besides, even though the author argues in favor of abortion, in some cases, the analogy with abortion falls short, even to say that the argument could be used to support the moral permissibility of killing the old or the disabled, as well as any others who may threaten the bodily autonomy of another person. These considerations may return readers back to the exploration of fetal personhood, as mentioned at the beginning of the paper.
To counter the criticism of Thomson’s thought experiment, it should be noted that the author had to encourage her audience to hypothesize that they were intentionally connected to the violinist’s vital systems against their will. The aspect of force is important because it allows for furthering the hypothesis regarding abortion’s moral acceptability. Specifically, it is more complex to argue against abortion if a woman got pregnant as a result of sexual assault. Therefore, in the same way, a person was kidnapped and forcefully connected to the violinist for nine months, a woman who was sexually assaulted and got pregnant feels trapped and not in control of her life and choices. Despite the fact that both the violinist and the fetus are righteously reserved to live, their right to use another person’s body and ‘freedom’ is not warranted within the realms of moral permissibility.
Reference
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1, 1971, pp. 47-66.