My philosophy paper

Hey guys, I just wanna start off by saying that I am posting my paper for those of you who are curious how I write, what I think etc… you know, for the fans who just wanna get to know me. Please be aware that, as this is a philosophy paper, it may or may not offer a point of view that is not in accord with what you believe and therefore, it may offend you. I do apologize if I say something that strikes you hard as rude or inconsiderate but in a world with 7 billion inhabitants and counting, chances are someone out there’s gotta disagree with ya lol. Also, the majority of this paper deals with the works of 2 other philosophers so a lot of this is just me summarizing lol

 

We will be considering the stories of two women, Susan and Tammy. Both women are avid Bon Jovi fans who travelled the country attending Bon Jovi concerts. Unfortunately, Susan and Tammy were both raped after attending one of these concerts. Susan has decided to get an abortion in the 11th week of her pregnancy. Her decision is enforced after learning that her future daughter would be mentally disabled after the age of 2. Similarly, Tammy’s child would also have the same disability. Knowing this however, Tammy had fully intended on giving birth to the child and, upon realizing that doing so would disable her from attending another Bon Jovi concert, has decided to get an abortion in the 6th month of her pregnancy. Though both women have made the choice to get an abortion, can it be debated that one woman deserves to get the abortion while the other does not? To better understand which aspects of each case make abortion either right or wrong, we will begin by studying an argument presented by Judith Jarvis Thomson in “A Defense of Abortion” which asks whether abortion really is murder. Then, we will examine the opposing view presented by Don Marquis in “An Argument That Abortion Is Wrong” in which Marquis argues that abortion robs fetuses of their right to a future like ours. Finally,  we will apply these two philosophies to the cases of Susan and Tammy in order to explain what each woman ought do.

One of the main aspects of the cases at hand is the fact that these women were raped and therefore did not choose to become pregnant therefore they should choose what to do with their bodies. According to Judith Jarvis Thomson, rape is an excusable reason to have an abortion. Thomson gives an example of a famous unconscious violinist who has a fatal kidney disease. In this example she imagines that the Society of Music Lovers has found that you alone have the right blood type needed to save the violinist. As a result, you have been kidnapped overnight and been plugged into his circulatory system in order to rid him and yourself of his poisons so that you may both go on with your lives when the process is complete. To unplug him would be to kill him. The process will take nine months and even though, as a human, you have the right to decide what happens to your body, the violinist’s right to life outweighs this right and therefore, your rights are neglected. In this example, Thomson is comparing pregnancy caused by rape to a kidnapping and use of our bodies by a stranger in need of survival aid. According to Thomson, forcing a woman to keep a child who is the product of rape is just as unfair as asking an innocent person to share their life and body with a random stranger simply because this stranger requires help. Thomson later discusses the example of the violinist when examining his right to life.

Another similarity between the two women is that neither woman’s life is threatened by the potential birth of the child. Thomson also studies the right to life of an individual in the event that the mother’s life is not in jeopardy and concludes that the right to life simply guarantees the right not to be unjustly killed. She imagines a situation in which she is deathly ill and the only thing that can save her is the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on her fevered brow. This amusing example offers good insight into the assumption that the right to life automatically indicates a right to the use of another person’s body. Of course Thomson has the right to life but this does not guarantee that Henry Fonda is obliged to come touch her forehead. Similarly, the fetus’s right to life does not guarantee the continued use of the mother’s body anymore than it guarantee’s Thomson access to Henry Fonda’s hand. Referring to the previous example, though the famous violinist has a right to life, it does not guarantee him the right to use your kidneys to secure his right to life. While the majority of Thomson’s argument seems to defend abortion, the philosopher points out that while abortion is not morally impermissible, it is not always morally permissible. In effect, Thomson admits that certain cases may exist where carrying the child to term requires only Minimally Decent Samaritanism of the mother. She specifies that it would be indecent for a woman to request an abortion in her seventh month of pregnancy just to avoid the inconvenience of postponing a trip abroad. Judith Thomson’s imaginary scenarios seem to allow abortion in the cases we are studying due to the fact that both women were raped. However, considering Tammy’s selfish intentions for the abortion, Thomson would argue that Tammy is not acting as a Minimally Decent Samaritan because a late abortion for the sake of convenience is in fact wrong.  Now that we have examined Thomson’s philosophies regarding abortion, let us take a look at the opposing view offered by Don Marquis.

Marquis’s primary concern with abortion is that it constitutes killing the fetus which deprives it from a Future Like Ours (FLO).  Basically according to Marquis, killing a person is wrong because it causes premature death which disables a person from experiencing all the events life has to offer. To better support the Future Like Ours approach, Marquis studies two cases regarding the timing of death. In the first case, a person falls into a coma and recovers immediately before death. On the other hand we consider the person falling into a coma and dieing right away. According to the person involved, both scenarios are equal in terms of the amount of pleasure to be experienced or not to be experienced because either way, the coma is followed by death. In the second case, we imagine a patient who is terminally ill with cancer. In one scenario, the patient received treatment which will limit his/her pain for 6 months until he/she dies. In the second scenario the patient receives treatment which will not limit his/her pain. The patient will also die after 6 months of treatment. According to Marquis, these cases show us that continued consciousness is necessary but not sufficient for a life worth living. In effect, being alive is not the main aspect of a happy life. It is necessary but the other circumstances regarding that life are what make said life valuable. Several arguments are presented by Marquis in favor of his FLO philosophy. Within The Appeal to Cases Argument are several cases. One of these cases is the Case of Witholding Medical Treatment in which Marquis states that “A patient who is permanently unconscious cannot have a future that she would come to value, whatever her values. Therefore, according to the FLO theory of the wrongness of killing, death could not, ceteris paribus, be a misfortune to her.” In short,because the patient does not have the cognitive capacities required to recognize a future like ours, her premature death would not cause her misfortune, according to Marquis. Another case is the Case of Aliens which imagines that if there were aliens who had futures comparable to ours, then it would be morally wrong to kill them. Both of these cases rely on the value of the potential future of a living being.  In addition, The Analogy with Animals Argument supports the FLO theory. We admit that suffering  is a misfortune regardless of who is suffering. By acknowledging that animals can suffer because we must acknowledge that humans can suffer regardless of their race. Therefore the infliction of suffering is wrong no matter on whom it is inflicted, whether it be on “…persons or nonpersons.” Through this analogy, the FLO theory argues that inflicting suffering on fetuses is wrong. Now that we have studied Marquis’s approach to the topic of abortion, let’s apply his and Thomson’s philosophies to the cases of Susan and Tammy.

In Susan’s case, Judith Jarvis Thomson would probably argue that Susan has the right to choose what to do with and to her body. Considering the fetus is the product of rape, Thomson would compare it the famous unconscious violinist. In turn, the fetus would not have the right to the use of Susan’s body simply because the fetus requires it for continued survival. In addition, Susan’s decision to abort the fetus is made early on in the pregnancy and is further enforced after learning that the child would never develop the cognitive capacities beyond those of a two year old. According to Thomson, Susan is not being immoral because her choice is not based on selfish reasoning. On the other hand, Marquis would attempt to show that Susan ought not abort the fetus because to do so would robbing the child of a future like ours. However, the FLO theory is somewhat complicated in this case because, having limited cognitive capacities would immediately disable the child from  having a future like ours because it would not be able to recognize the pleasures of life. In this case it seems that FLO theory would work against Marquis’s argument that abortion is wrong because, according to his Case of Witholding Medical Treatment,  the child’s death could not be a misfortune to her as she would not have the mental capacities to judge her life. Regardless, it is important to note that Marquis grants the exception of rape as an excusable reason for abortion in the beginning of his essay and as such, his theory would not be applied.

In Tammy’s case, Thomson might agree that Tammy deserves to choose what happens in and to her body due to the fact that the she was kidnapped by the fetus in a way. However, Tammy’s intentions regarding the abortion are selfish because she wishes to abort the fetus late in her pregnancy for reasons regarding her own convenience. In effect, attending a Bon Jovi concert is not more important than allowing the fetus a life.  According to Judith Thomsom, this means that Tammy is not a Minimally Decent Samaritan and ought not abort the fetus.  In the case of Marquis, we can assume that his reactions to Tammy’s and Susan’s cases are the same. However, the difference in ages of the two womens’ fetuses might be of interest in regards to The Analogy with Animals Argument. Although this argument states that the infliction of suffering is wrong regardless of whom the suffering is inflicted upon, it is possible that Tammy’s fetus might suffer more during the abortion because she is almost to term and therefore her capacity to experience pain might be greater than that of a newer fetus.

In my opinion I feel that when a woman is raped, her right to abort should not be any greater than that of a woman who has not been raped. The circumstances experienced by the mother should not affect the consequences experienced by the fetus. I do believe in the right to choose however with good enough reason, with “good enough” being defined as what is best for the majority of the lives involved. Susan ought have the right to abort because she wishes to do so for the sake of the child. Though I find Tammy’s intentions to be selfish and downright ridiculous, she ought abort as well because I believe that having evolved cognitive capacities is what enables us as humans to experience life to the fullest and to help others do the same. Without a certain level of mental ability, the child will be able to survive physically but I don’t believe she will be able to truly live. If Tammy’s child was not to be a victim of this mental disability, I would not think she should abort.

All in all, Judith Jarvis Thomson’s philosophy seems to be the most effective in judging the two womens’ cases. While Marquis does a thorough evaluation of abortion in terms of killing, he excuses rape from any and all of his arguments therefore his theories are not applicable. Thomson on the other hand is primarily concerned with the case of pregnancy due to rape and whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong. She also specifies that abortion is wrong after a certain length of pregnancy as well as for certain reasons. This is the Minimally Decent Samaritan argument which applies best to Tammy’s case. The rest of Thomson’s essay applies to Susan’s case well.