1

Syed Sikander Gilani

PHIL 204

26 November 2023

Philosophy Essay - Pro-Choice Stance

Abortion refers to the deliberate action of ending a pregnancy (WHO). In some cases, it

is a necessary health intervention while in others a person may choose to terminate their

pregnancy for other less severe reasons. The reason abortion may be considered a fascinating

issue for philosophers is due to the highly partisan nature of both sides, pro-choice and anti-

abortion. It is also interesting how these highly partisan parties believe their conclusion is the

utmost moral and true. Philosophically, it is only natural to then consider the rightfulness and

wrongness of abortion. In this essay, I will present a pro-choice stance, considering the morality

of abortion as well as philosophically argue against anti-abortionists. This essay is divided into 3

main parts, taking a pro-choice stance in context to Thomson’s violinist thought experiment, a

thought experiment of my own to support the pro-choice argument, and finally, considering an

opposing view by philosopher Marquis.

The act of abortion should not concern any other individual except the person whose

body is involved in the pregnancy. Some may argue that the other parent, usually the father may

have a say. But at the end of the day, it is the person who has to carry the pregnancy for 9 whole

months and give birth who deserves full bodily autonomy. As said by Thomson, putting aside the

issue of when a human person begins, suppose you wake up connected to a violinist (Thomson

3). The violinist wants to use your kidneys and if you were to disconnect from them before 9

months, they will die. In this case, is it morally right to disconnect yourself? The Good

Samaritans may argue that it would be wrong to disconnect yourself. But think of the physical
 2

and emotional strain being connected to the violinist would have on your own body and its

health. Do you sacrifice your well-being to take care of another person, a person whom you have

no connection to? One could possibility argue that the pregnant person would form a connection

with the fetus, in that case it is their choice to keep the pregnancy or terminate it. The argument

here against anti-abortionists who believe it is their right to dictate how the autonomy of the

choice of abortion is carried out, regardless of the pregnant person’s connection to the fetus.

Should you be obligated to remain there for 9 months? I agree with Thomson that it would be

morally right to disconnect yourself. It is your body, your kidneys. Why should they be at

anyone else’s disposal, especially without your consent? Thomson also equates this example

with rape. Because your own body is being used against your wishes. At this point, you may

consider the moral and ethical issues pertaining to rape. Considering Thomson’s perspective, I

agree that the person’s kidneys have no business being used without their informed voluntary

consent. In this case, informed voluntary consent is violated via coercion and taking advantage of

a desperate situation; because if the person were to disconnect from the violinist they would be

shamed, and if they stayed they would risk their health and well-being.

Having considered Thomson’s thought experiment, I present my own thought experiment

next. Consider that in the future advanced technology has allowed human beings to transfer

consciousness between individuals. Person A wakes up to find that their consciousness has been

transferred to Person B. Person B’s body is on life support, therefore they are unconscious yet

still alive. Person A learns that the only way to get back to their own body is for their

consciousness to stay in Person B’s body for nine months. If Person A takes back their body

before 9 months, Person B will die. Referring back to Thomson’s argument, I can say that you do

have the right to disconnect because your autonomy is at stake. Though this scenario may differ
 3

from the violinist thought experiment, the underlying question is the same: is it morally wrong to

consider one's autonomy more important than another person’s life, even if the connection was

involuntary? In this perspective, I believe that it is morally right to disconnect from Person B in

order for Person A to get their consciousness back. Person B is on life support, similarly, a fetus

is also immobile and unable to do things that a normal, living, breathing human being would be

capable of. Then, is it really wrong to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Why is it that no limit

is considered for Person A’s obligations to sustain Person B’s life? Person A deserves their

autonomy.

Anti-abortionists argue that killing of any kind is wrong. Especially in cases of abortion,

many argue that reproductive technological developments are attempting to ‘play God.’

However, Marquis takes on a different anti-abortion stance. He argues that killing is wrong for

two reasons; because it harms the killer and because it hurts a person’s loved ones. Marquis

argues that killing is wrong because it deprives the fetus of its future experiences and enjoyment.

He argues not from the perspective that fetuses are human beings, but rather he is arguing that its

future has value.

The main issue with Marquis’ argument is that it fails to apply when the fetus’ future

value is threatened in cases where birth defects or terminal illnesses come into play. Moreover,

determining exactly when the fetus gains a future value is not elaborated on. Marquis also rejects

all other accounts, such as the discontinuation and desire accounts which respectively state that

killing is wrong because it stops a stream of consciousness and killing is wrong because it

frustrates the desire to continue living. Thomson however focuses on bodily autonomy, which

should be the main subject of discussion when arguing for abortion. In failing to consider the
 4

most basic aspect of abortion; bodily autonomy, Marquis’ argument falls short. Considering the

aforementioned disanalogies, Marquis’ argument against abortion is found to be lacking.

Works Cited

World. “Abortion.” Who.int, World Health Organization: WHO, 25 Nov. 2021,

www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion. Accessed 26 Nov. 2023.

Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion.” Http://Www.Jstor.Org, Philosophy and

Publics Affairs, 23 Nov. 2009, www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2265091.pdf. Accessed 26 Nov.

2023.

Marquis, Don. “Why Abortion Is Immoral.” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 86, no. 4,

1989, pp. 183–202. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2026961. Accessed 26 Nov. 2023.

“U-M Web Hosting.” Www-Personal.umich.edu,

www-personal.umich.edu/~jdmitrig/6%20Mappes.pdf. Accessed 26 Nov. 2023.