Paper details: For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that a fetus is a person and so has a right to life

Subject:Health SciencePrice:13.89 Bought3

Share With

Paper details:

For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that a fetus is a person and so has a right to life. What does Thomson think that this stipulation entails about the permissibility of abortion? In answering this question, be sure to distinguish between different kinds of pregnancies ( those that are the result of rape, those that jeopardize the mother’s life, those that came about through consensual sex with or without the use of birth control) and to explain the reasoning Thomson uses to reach her conclusions. In presenting her conclusions, make sure to explain a distinction between cases in which abortion may be immoral (perhaps ‘indecent’ is a better way to put it), but still permissible. Do you agree with Thomson’s conclusion that abortion is almost always permissible up until the time, say, when the fetus is viable outside the womb? If not, where does Thomson’s reasoning go wrong?

In writing this paper, make sure to include in your introductory paragraph a clear description of what you’ll be doing in the paper (e.g. “In this paper I will be examining Thomson’s reasons for thinking that abortion is permissible across a range of different kinds of pregnancies You’ll also want to include in this paragraph an indication of what these different sorts of pregnancies are, how Thomson’s reasoning starts with the assumption that fetuses are persons, and allows for a distinction between abortions that would be indecent but still permissible. Finally, you’ll want to gesture at the stand you’ll be taking (e.g. “I will argue that Thomson is right/wrong about X because she succeeds/fails to show Y”). A solid intro paragraph should provide you with a map for constructing the rest of the paper.

If defending Thomson, you need to do more than simply repeat her reasoning. You should defend her by considering a plausible objection to her account and then providing a compelling response to this objection (sort of like what I do in the video when responding to an objection that Al Roy Parrish raises to Thomson’s discussion of the permissibility of abortion in cases involving consensual sex). If criticizing Thomson, be sure to be clear about which of her claims you think is false and why, or which inference she makes is invalid.