In Defense of Abortion

Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson

by Madeleine Kando

For most of history abortion was regarded as a necessary evil, but not as an illegal act. The old philosophers believed that a fetus does not begin to have ‘life’ until the 4th month of pregnancy and even the Old Testament refers to the fetus as ‘property’, but not necessarily ‘endowed with the sanctity of life’.

In the Western world, abortion was accepted if it was carried out before ‘quickening’, i.e. once the fetus moved in the womb. Until then it was regarded as part of the mother, so an abortion was not considered unethical. It was performed by trained midwives who specialized in female anatomy.

By 1880, the Church and the medical establishment decided that abortions should be illegal. Under the pretext that it was unsafe (which it was not, since midwives were highly skilled practitioners), they pushed for legislation that would criminalize abortion under any circumstance, except to save the mother’s life.

Thus, for an entire century (until Roe vs. Wade (1973), women had to turn to illegal means. The mortality rate jumped up and figures from the late 1920s show that some 15,000 women a year died from illegal abortion procedures. (Abortion in American History)

These days, the topic of abortion has become so politicized that it is almost impossible to say anything sensible about it without rousing the ire of anyone with an opposing view. The debate is mostly fueled by the question of how ‘moral’ it is to have or perform an abortion. Does that mean that we have become more moral as human beings? Or is the whole morality argument a smoke-screen for less lofty motivations?

The Pro-abortion argument goes like this: 1) making abortions laws more restrictive has terrible consequences for women (illegal abortions), and 2) denying access to abortion is to deprive a woman’s right to control her own body.

The Anti-abortion arguments are: 1) A fetus is a human being and has the right to life. Therefore abortion is murder, regardless of the consequences of restricting its access. 2) Mere ownership of your body does not give you the right to kill an innocent person inside your body.

One of the most brilliant defenders of abortion rights is the late philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson (1929-2020). In her 1971 article "A Defense of Abortion", she explains with clever analogies, that the right to life is not the same as the right to anyone else’s body, even if that body is needed for someone to stay alive.

For the sake of argument, Thompson is willing to take on the initial (anti-abortion) claim that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, even though she does not believe it. An acorn is not the same as an oak tree, she says.

She also takes on the extreme anti-abortion argument that nothing should be done to end a fetus’ life. But what if the fetus threatens the mother’s life? In that case, it is ‘self-defense’ and the mother is morally entitled to end the pregnancy to save her own life.

How is an outsider to choose, since both the fetus and the mother have equal rights to life? Thomson’s counter argument is that, if one of the parties has a ‘just claim’, an outsider is obligated to choose:

If you and your friend find a jacket, you both have equal claim to the jacket. But if my friend wants MY jacket and I do too, an outsider is obligated to give the jacket to me, the owner. I have ‘a just claim’ to the jacket. In other words, added to the fetus and the woman’s equal rights, the woman also has the right to her own body (autonomy). Therefore a doctor is morally obligated to help her have an abortion and save her life, not the fetus. *

But doesn’t the fetus have an equal right (and just claim) to its own body? That response is addressed by Johnson's 'expanding baby' argument: Since the fetus is an inhabitant of your house, when it starts to grow and threatens your life in the process, like squashing you against the wall, you have every right to end its existence, whether it has rights to life or a just claim to its own body. Your rights to self-defense justifies your action.*

So, what if I don’t want to be pregnant and my life is not at risk? Can the fetus force me to stay pregnant? Thomson gives the example of ‘Henry Fonda’s healing hand’. If I have a disease that can only be cured (and save my life) if Henry Fonda puts his hand on my forehead, he probably should save me, but I don’t have a right to force him. In other words, even if the fetus has a right to life, it is not entitled to force a woman to use her body in a way that she doesn’t want to. Therefore, Thomson argues that abortion is justified, even in cases where the mother’s life is not at risk.

The counter-argument to this is that if a woman chooses to have sex, she knows she could get pregnant. She cannot change her mind afterward and say that she doesn’t want her body to be used that way. If you put down money on a bet and you loose the bet, you cannot say afterwards that you want to keep the money and not bet it.

But there is a difference between causal and moral responsibility. If you slip in the shower cell and cause your own death, you are causally responsible but not morally. Everyone takes showers but they don’t intend to die doing it and if they do, they are not held morally responsible. If you use birth control but get pregnant, you are causally responsible, but not morally. It’s like slipping in the shower.

Thomson was certainly not in favor of abortion under any circumstances. She uses the term ‘good Samaritan’ to express her belief that if pregnancy only took 9 days it would be the right thing to do for a woman to be a good Samaritan. 

I personally am in the pro-choice camp, but if you are on the fence, maybe reading Thomson's article could convince you that in many cases abortion is not only the practical thing to do but also morally acceptable. leave comment here

* If it doesn't threaten your life but merely threatens the quality of your life, you still have the right to evict it, since without your house, the fetus would not be able to live at all. It is a guest, or at the most a family member that has been invited, and has no equal claim to YOUR house.