PHLB09H3 Chap.8 Abortion: Thomson and Marquis
Abortion: Thomson and Marquis
Two papers that disagree about the key premise
Week nine sets Judith Jarvis Thomson's defence of abortion against Don Marquis's argument that abortion is immoral. Marquis assumes that the permissibility of abortion turns on the moral status of the fetus and argues that the fetus has what makes killing wrong.
Thomson grants, for the sake of argument, that the fetus is a person from conception and argues that abortion can still be permissible.
Thomson's strategy
Through the violinist case and others, Thomson argues that a right to life is not a right to be given whatever one needs, nor a right never to be killed, but a right not to be killed unjustly. No one has a right to use another person's body unless it is given.
Morality requires us to be Minimally Decent Samaritans, not Good Samaritans, so abortion is often permissible, though some abortions are indecent and the mother has no right to secure the child's death.
Marquis's strategy
Marquis argues that killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of a future of value, a future like ours. A standard fetus has such a future, so abortion is presumptively seriously wrong.
He rejects rival desire and discontinuation accounts and answers the contraception objection by asking who the victim would be.
What this chapter covers
- 01
The Violinist Case
- 02
Right Not to Be Killed Unjustly
- 03
Minimally Decent Samaritan
- 04
Future Like Ours
- 05
Desire and Discontinuation Accounts
- 06
Contraception Objection
Worked example · free
Apply both authors to a single case
- 2Apply Thomson, including her burglar or people-seeds reasoning.
- 2Apply Marquis, including the strength of his presumption.
- 2Identify the premise on which the two analyses divide.
Key terms
- Good Samaritan
- A Good Samaritan, in Thomson's usage, is someone who goes out of their way at real cost to help a person in need.
- Desire Account
- The desire account holds that killing is wrong because it frustrates the victim's desire to go on living, a view Marquis rejects.
- Discontinuation Account
- The discontinuation account holds that killing is wrong because it ends the valuable experiences a victim is currently having.
- Special Responsibility
- Special responsibility, for Thomson, is a duty to a child that a parent acquires by assuming it, explicitly or implicitly.
- Unjust Killing
- Unjust killing is killing that deprives the victim of something they have a right to, which Thomson says an opponent of abortion must establish.
Abortion: Thomson and Marquis FAQ
What does the violinist case show?
It shows that the standard argument against abortion is faulty. In the case, every premise of that argument applies: the violinist is a person with a right to life, and you have rights over your body. Yet it seems outrageous to say you may never unplug him. So a right to life does not by itself give anyone a right to use another person's body.
Does Thomson think abortion is always permissible?
No. She argues it is often permissible, for example after rape or when continuing would require large sacrifices, but that some abortions are indecent, such as a late abortion to avoid postponing a trip. She also says the mother may detach the fetus but has no right to secure its death if it could survive. She presents these graded verdicts as a strength of her view.
How does Marquis answer the contraception objection?
He grants that contraception prevents a possible future of value but denies it harms anyone. Before conception there is only the sperm, the ovum, both separately or some possible combination, and none of these is a non-arbitrary subject deprived of a future. He adds that there is no duty to maximise the number of valuable futures that come to exist.
Is Marquis's argument a potentiality argument?
Marquis says it is not. He denies reasoning from the wrongness of killing persons to the wrongness of killing potential persons. His central claim is that the fetus actually has a valuable future that killing takes away. Critics reply that this future is doing the same work as potentiality, and this is a common follow-up topic in discussion.
Exam move
Write each author's argument as numbered premises on one card each. On the back, list three cases the author uses and what each is meant to show. Practise a two-sentence statement of where the papers divide: fetal status versus bodily rights.
Then rehearse answers to the main problems for each view, such as voluntary intercourse for Thomson and contraception for Marquis, and finish by explaining aloud how each might respond to the other.
