In “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thomson considers the nature and implications of the right to life. According to Thomson, even if X has a right to life, X does not have a right to whatever she needs in order to stay alive. Importantly for our purposes, she does not have the right to use another person’s body even if she needs the use of this body for life itself. In her well-known example, the famous violinist may need the use of your kidneys to stay alive, but he is not entitled to them (i.e., he does not have a right to them). It would be ‘frightfully nice’ of you to stay in bed with him for nine months. However, you are not morally obligated to do so because he has no right to the use of your body. Based upon this observation, Thomson argues that abortion in cases of rape is morally permissible. She then provides us with further thought experiments to get us to think in the right way about other cases. Thomson is interested in whether or not a woman gives a fetus the right to use her body by voluntarily engaging in sexual intercourse. Forum Question: Does a woman give a fetus the right to use her body by voluntarily engaging in sexual intercourse? What details about a given case might make a difference? What if the woman does not want to get pregnant? What if the birth control methods that she uses fail? Explain and critically discuss Thomson’s position in your post.
