Third-party participation – the "expanding child" Thus, by choosing to terminate her pregnancy, Thomson concludes that a pregnant woman does not normally violate the fetus's right to life, but merely withdraws its use of her own body, which usually causes the fetus to die.
"f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due." įor the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's legitimate right to life, but merely deprives the fetus of something-the non-consensual use of the pregnant person's body and life-supporting functions-to which it has no right. Thomson argues that one can now permissibly unplug oneself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: this is due to limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist, one does not violate his right to life but merely deprives him of something-the use of someone else's body-to which he has no right. in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist.
In "A Defense of Abortion", Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appealing to a thought experiment:
0 kommentar(er)
