From her arguments in the article, it is evident that Judith Thomson is "pro-choice." The phrase, "pro-choice" defines the views of the proponents of induced abortion. Contrary, one is said to be "pro-life" if they oppose the freedom for women to have voluntary and elective abortions. Judith Thomson notes that while she understands the opposing views, there are multiple instances in which the right to choose what happens to and in your body supersedes the right to life.
To elaborate her stance on the issue of abortion, Thomson uses an example of a violinist who falls critically ill due to kidney failure. She suggests that the society of music lovers the kidnaps someone, and connects the violinist’s blood to their kidneys in an attempt to save his life. The doctors, and everyone, in general, suggest to the kidnapped person that it would be wrong to unplug themselves from the violinist, as the latter would die. She argues that many anti-abortionists would find such a scenario ridiculous, yet it is what happens in the case of a woman falling pregnant after rape. Furthermore, she explores the weight of the right to life and the freedom to choose. The kidnapped person, she illustrates, learns that due to the extra strain on their kidneys, they will die in a month. She supports the idea that they would be right to save themselves. Thomson uses the example to show that the argument that a fetus is a human being, with the right to life, is not enough to deny the right to choose whether to have an abortion.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Thomson's overall position is that most of the arguments against voluntary abortion are half-baked at best. She, therefore, argues for the women's freedom to choose if to abort by discrediting the bases of her opponents, one at a time. For example, she dismantles the idea of distinguishing between killing the fetus and letting the mother die. She states that both the mother and fetus have an equal right to life, but the mother’s added right to save herself outweighs the fetus’ rights (Thomson 1971). Her arguments are intelligent, and they refrain from the standard political aura that generally mars the issue of abortion.
References
Thomson, J. J. (1971). A Defense of Abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs , 1(1), 47-66.
