Thomson and Abortion - by Stan Kokoszka
Thomson’s analogy between the leeching violinist and the fetus is incorrect because the violinist brings with his actions, intent, whereas the fetus is incapable of such things. On the surface Thomson’s example appears to be a good one, in that, for the woman, she becomes a host to an unwanted parasite. Thomson argues that it would not be unjust to remove the parasites from the woman’s body, because they were placed there without her consent. And it is with this notion of ‘consent’ that a counter argument can be formed.
Despite conceding that it is morally ok for the woman to unhook the violinist if she chooses one shouldn’t concede to the woman removing an unwanted fetus based on Thomson’s terms. Firstly, the violinist wronged the woman when he attached himself to her without first gaining her consent. He placed her in an uncomfortable situation forcing her to make a decision that would immediately affect the violinist’s life. As Alward points out there is a difference between letting one die and killing another person. The woman may have been more liable to refuse the violinist had he or she asked before leeching on. Regardless, there is a difference between this situation and one where birth control fails and a woman becomes pregnant. While it may be true that the fetus is unwanted, it was not the fetus that is responsible for its formation.
Now this is where consent really comes into play. If it is true that the woman consented to sex then aborting the fetus is wrong. This argument sounds so outdated in today’s society, however it remains a strong one. Sex’s purpose, biologically speaking, is procreation. Keeping that in mind, anyone who consents to sex must realize that pregnancy is a common result. Blaming birth control is out of the question because, no form of birth control, save for major surgery, is 100% preventative. (And there have even been rare cases where reproductive surgeries have failed to prevent pregnancy.) Therefore, despite the use of some form of birth control it must be understood that sex could result in a fetus. At what point of all this does the fetus unjustly take liberties from the mother? The answer is nowhere. The fetus is the byproduct, whereas the violinist an input of sorts.
The case of the violinist would be comparable to the fetus if the following were Thomson’s example. Suppose there is some kind of sick and sadistic game show where contestants are asked to pick a door to win a huge cash prize. However, behind one of the doors is a violinist who requires a host for life support. If she chooses this particular door she will have to allow this violinist to leech off of her for a period of time. Now, she doesn’t want this to happen, but because she doesn’t know what is behind what door she must take a chance. Therefore, by playing the game she has consented to the possibility of getting the violinist. Likewise, the woman who has sex, even on birth control, has consented to pregnancy due to the nature of sex. With the analogies equivalent, it is going to be a lot harder for Thomson to make her injustice claims.
Despite conceding that it is morally ok for the woman to unhook the violinist if she chooses one shouldn’t concede to the woman removing an unwanted fetus based on Thomson’s terms. Firstly, the violinist wronged the woman when he attached himself to her without first gaining her consent. He placed her in an uncomfortable situation forcing her to make a decision that would immediately affect the violinist’s life. As Alward points out there is a difference between letting one die and killing another person. The woman may have been more liable to refuse the violinist had he or she asked before leeching on. Regardless, there is a difference between this situation and one where birth control fails and a woman becomes pregnant. While it may be true that the fetus is unwanted, it was not the fetus that is responsible for its formation.
Now this is where consent really comes into play. If it is true that the woman consented to sex then aborting the fetus is wrong. This argument sounds so outdated in today’s society, however it remains a strong one. Sex’s purpose, biologically speaking, is procreation. Keeping that in mind, anyone who consents to sex must realize that pregnancy is a common result. Blaming birth control is out of the question because, no form of birth control, save for major surgery, is 100% preventative. (And there have even been rare cases where reproductive surgeries have failed to prevent pregnancy.) Therefore, despite the use of some form of birth control it must be understood that sex could result in a fetus. At what point of all this does the fetus unjustly take liberties from the mother? The answer is nowhere. The fetus is the byproduct, whereas the violinist an input of sorts.
The case of the violinist would be comparable to the fetus if the following were Thomson’s example. Suppose there is some kind of sick and sadistic game show where contestants are asked to pick a door to win a huge cash prize. However, behind one of the doors is a violinist who requires a host for life support. If she chooses this particular door she will have to allow this violinist to leech off of her for a period of time. Now, she doesn’t want this to happen, but because she doesn’t know what is behind what door she must take a chance. Therefore, by playing the game she has consented to the possibility of getting the violinist. Likewise, the woman who has sex, even on birth control, has consented to pregnancy due to the nature of sex. With the analogies equivalent, it is going to be a lot harder for Thomson to make her injustice claims.
posted by Kelly Sorensen | 5:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home