Thompson's Arguments Against Abortion

Words: 1134
Pages: 5

When Thompson argues that abortion is morally permissible in the case of consensual sex, she uses arguments from analogy. Thompson for the sake of argument states that a fetus is a person and has rights; however, she argues that the rights of the women prevail over those of the fetus. She looks more closely at whether abortion is an unjustified killing of the fetus. To do this she prepares an argument that shows the mother has no obligation to the fetus; because, for it to be an unjust killing this must be valid. Thompson tries to prove that knowingly engaging in sex has risk of pregnancy; however, this risk does not generate an obligation to that fetus.
She uses an example that when someone opens their window they take a risk that a burglar will enter their residence. When the window is opened, the burglar enters and gets hurt; so now, they have the obligation to let the burglar stay until they heal. So, the question here is if they are obligated to take care of this person or can they kick him out of their home. This argument is that a
…show more content…
Thompson gives two examples that are a little abnormal, the one with the burglar, and the one with the people-seed. To me they just do not fit the situation as well as a possible different example may have better justified her view. I think that Thompson could have had a stronger argument on this subject if she gave a more accurate example. A burglar is not a good example to use when talking about a fetus. This is because a burglar and a fetus have absolutely nothing in common. The same instance with the people-seed example; she states that the window is like having sexual intercourse and the screen is like using contraceptives. This could be looked past but, the example of a seed flying inside your home and taking root in the living room is not a good explanation comparing to a fetus. Why are these analogies