On the Morals of Abortion and Responsibility
Nick Schwartz
November 21, 2014
PHIL 1104 – Take Home Exam
Abortion continues to be an incendiary topic for debate in all facets of human society. Debating the right to life against a multitude of different circumstances becomes increasingly strenuous with celerity. However, one notorious philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, provides a strong argument for justifying abortion in the eyes of moral thinkers. In cases of failed contraception, Thomson argues that abortion can be justified, despite the uproar from both pro-life and pro-choice supporters in favor of the contrary. Thomson argues her point very effectively, and allows for her thoughts to be applied to grander schemes. Contrary to popular thought, people should not be held responsible for events happening which they took reasonable steps to prevent. By taking all reasonable precautions, people effectively nullify their responsibility for outcomes they attempted to prevent. Thomson argues two other main points involving justifying abortion. These are that abortion is justified in cases of rape, or if the pregnancy and birth could be fatal to the mother. Both of these points are largely backed by the premise that the right of the woman to her body trumps the right to life for the fetus. However, this notion can be harder to justify when looking at the murkier example of failed contraception. Contraception shows an awareness to potential consequences of performing an action. If a woman takes all reasonable steps to prevent pregnancy, then she has done all that she has to, in terms of morality. Going above and beyond this can be more detrimental than helpful, such as a hysterectomy. This operation, in which a woman has her uterus removed, can be very dangerous and life threatening. There is no reason for the woman to take this risk simply to do more than what is required. Therefore, if a woman truly does take all reasonable steps, birth control pills, condoms, IUD, etc., then she should not be held
November 21, 2014
PHIL 1104 – Take Home Exam
Abortion continues to be an incendiary topic for debate in all facets of human society. Debating the right to life against a multitude of different circumstances becomes increasingly strenuous with celerity. However, one notorious philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, provides a strong argument for justifying abortion in the eyes of moral thinkers. In cases of failed contraception, Thomson argues that abortion can be justified, despite the uproar from both pro-life and pro-choice supporters in favor of the contrary. Thomson argues her point very effectively, and allows for her thoughts to be applied to grander schemes. Contrary to popular thought, people should not be held responsible for events happening which they took reasonable steps to prevent. By taking all reasonable precautions, people effectively nullify their responsibility for outcomes they attempted to prevent. Thomson argues two other main points involving justifying abortion. These are that abortion is justified in cases of rape, or if the pregnancy and birth could be fatal to the mother. Both of these points are largely backed by the premise that the right of the woman to her body trumps the right to life for the fetus. However, this notion can be harder to justify when looking at the murkier example of failed contraception. Contraception shows an awareness to potential consequences of performing an action. If a woman takes all reasonable steps to prevent pregnancy, then she has done all that she has to, in terms of morality. Going above and beyond this can be more detrimental than helpful, such as a hysterectomy. This operation, in which a woman has her uterus removed, can be very dangerous and life threatening. There is no reason for the woman to take this risk simply to do more than what is required. Therefore, if a woman truly does take all reasonable steps, birth control pills, condoms, IUD, etc., then she should not be held