Abortion and Judith Jarvis Thomson - Case Study Example

Abortion and Judith Jarvis Thomson Since the ‘origination’ of humans in the form of men and women, stereotypical and realistic views about the role and rights of the women are always being discussed. In most of the cultures, women are being treated as the less-dominant sex, and stereotyped as individuals, whose only purpose in life is getting married and delivering children. Although, women are trying to nullify these views and are still fighting for their rights and freedom, there have been only modest successes. Women’s rights relating to the activity of abortion is a crucial at the same a controversial one. Although, there is opposition from various sections, regarding ‘women’s choices’ in relation to abortion, the basic fact is the decision to have a child or not, should entirely lie with the woman. Also, in certain situations, abortion becomes necessary to maintain the physical or mental health of the woman, whose circumstances are not favorable for giving birth to a child. So, this paper toeing the line of Judith Jarvis Thomson as well as criticizing it in some parts will come up with reasons why a healthy pregnant woman who is considering having an abortion during the early stages of pregnancy has therefore no moral duty not to have an abortion Interferes with the normal life of the woman Arguments arise regarding whether the fetus has a right to stay inside the body of another human being, especially against her will. Once inside the body of a woman, she has to carry the unknown human being along with her wherever she goes, involuntarily allowing the fetus inside her to interfere with her normal duties. Whatever makes the woman to carry the fetus along with her for 9 months, it may not be the love for the life inside her all the time. It is true that human beings value life, especially their own. However, the fetus is another life since even if it is born and grows up; it can never share the same life with the mother. This is because the newborn has its own rights and may develop in to an adult under favorable circumstances. Jarvis focuses on a fetus being considered as having the right to live like any other human being. However, it grows inside another human being who has a right to live and do whatever she wishes with her body (Thomson 48). Even if fetus is a human life, mother should only decide Jarvis somehow tends to highlight the connection between the fetus and the life of a human being. She states that it takes a short time for a fetus to acquire human characteristics at an early age, almost certainly at the age of ten weeks (Thomson 47). However, she disagrees with her own hypothesis by arguing that mere differentiation of cells can not be considered as a human being and accorded the respect that human beings deserve. The main question lies with this development, as well as the formation of human characteristics soon after conception (Thomson 48). For example, if differentiation of cells is a mere activity that occurs in the body of a human being, and for that matter in the uterus, they should differentiate in to other things that have different characteristics from humans. However that does not happens. This means that the fetus is destined to become a human being since the initial characteristics are the same as those of humans. Also, the women hold the life of that other individual. The fetus can not live on its own and therefore has to depend on the woman. This means that when the woman carries out an abortion, fetus’ life ends. It is important for all people to bear in mind that they were once fetuses. If they could have been aborted, there could be no life. So, one can accept Jarvis earlier position of fetus has humans, disagreeing with her later hypothesis that fetus is not human. Whatever be the scenario, the responsibility of abortion rests with the women or mother. Woman or mother’s life can be compromised Although, the woman offers protection and nourishment to the life inside her, it is not obligatory for the woman to sacrifice her life to do all this for the life of another individual. It is generally believed that everyone has a right to live without interference from other people. Under such considerations, it is clear that a woman has the right to eject a fetus from her body. Jarvis observes that the fetus may even at particular circumstances shorten the life of the mother. There are many situations whereby mothers have lost their lives while giving birth or due to complications during pregnancy. These are usually complications that are caused by the presence of the fetus in the body. In many cases, when a fetus causes the death of a woman, there might not be a lot to talk about. People say that “she died while giving birth”. However, if a woman successfully aborts a fetus, people take it as an unacceptable practice. Such a woman is discriminated in the society and is viewed as immoral. Mother is also innocent and so she should only decide Jarvis wonders who needs to be granted the right to life if the pregnancy brings complications, remembering that both the fetus and the mother are human, and they have a right to life (Thomson 50). The innocence of a fetus is something that may not be believed according to Jarvis. She argues that if the mother has to abort a fetus for the sake of her life, she needs not avoid doing so. In other words, although fetus is innocent, the mother is also innocent. The fetus can not make a logical decision but the mother is capable of thinking rationally. The fetus is likely to kill the mother and she knows it, but the fetus does not have information that it can kill the mother. Neither does it know that to save the mother, it has to be killed. On the other hand, there are usually low chances of the mother dying and the newborn surviving, though they do survive in some cases. Other people might be unable to identify the pain experienced by the mother, so it is left to the mother to decide. As an act of self Defense Every person has a right to self defense and therefore the intruder needs to be eliminated (Thomson 53). Other people may not support abortion in the situation where the mother’s life is not in danger, which is taken to be denial of the unborn child’s right to life. More over, Jarvis considers the fact that there is a right to life and a right not to be killed (Thomson 57). Under such circumstances, she observes that as long as the fetus has a right to life, the mother too has a right not to be killed by the fetus. When the mother dissociates from the fetus after realizing that she might be killed by the association, she does so for the purpose of ensuring that she saves her life from being killed by the fetus. This is an action of defense. Conclusion Jarvis views a person who refuses to allow the fetus to grow inside her may not have a moral obligation to do so. This is mainly because the woman has a right not to be killed. In regard to the law, the issue of maintaining a fetus in the body for nine months has been raised by Jarvis (Thomson 64). While it may be necessary to allow another human being to grow inside the body of a woman, it is important to realize that she can not be forced by the law to do so. This would not be out of willingness and Jarvis likens it to forced Samaritanism. On the other hand, it is important to understand that the motive of abortion is not supposed to be meant for killing the fetus. Rather, it should be for protecting the rights of the woman. Thus, a healthy pregnant woman who is considering having an abortion during the early stages of pregnancy has therefore no moral duty not to have an abortion. Works Cited Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion”. Rights, Restitution, and Risks: Essays in Moral Theory. Harvard University Press. 1986. Read More