This paper examines Judith Jarvis Thompson's influential 1970s argument defending abortion by accepting the premise that a fetus has a right to life. While praising Thompson's focus on maternal bodily autonomy, the author argues her approach is incomplete because it avoids the core controversy: determining at what point a fetus becomes a human being. The paper evaluates two possible markers—brain activity and fetal viability—as potential standards for establishing personhood, identifies limitations in each method, and concludes that a comprehensive abortion ethics framework must address both maternal rights and the point at which fetal rights begin.
Over the last several decades, abortion has become an increasingly controversial topic in popular culture, the press, and medical fields. The process is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, resulting in death of the embryo or fetus." This process has been thoroughly discussed across fields ranging from medical ethics to religious journalism, where it has been both defended and attacked.
The main focus of the controversy centers on determining at what point a fetus is considered a human being and therefore at what point abortion becomes morally impermissible or equivalent to murder. Different perspectives mark this transition at different stages. Some argue this occurs at the moment of conception, while others contend that personhood does not begin until the fetus develops fingers and vital organs around the tenth week of pregnancy. Still others, such as medical ethics author Judith Jarvis Thompson, take a different stance entirely and argue that drawing a line between being considered a person and not a person is an illogical and purposeless exercise. Thompson claims that calling a fetus at the moment of conception a human is like calling a freshly fallen acorn an oak tree, though she does agree that the transition from fetus to human being occurs long before birth.
Judith Jarvis Thompson is an author in the medical ethics field who wrote an influential article defending abortion in several medical journals during the 1970s. Her article attempts to avoid the abortion-versus-murder argument and defends medical abortion by accepting, for the sake of argument, that a fetus has a right to life. Through acceptance of this assumption, she discusses the flaws in the claims of those who argue that abortion is impermissible. She contends that just because a fetus has a right to life does not preclude the practice of abortion entirely.
Thompson uses a powerful metaphorical situation to illustrate this point: the forced donation of a kidney to a famous violinist. As she describes it: "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. 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. 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… To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."
This metaphor illustrates Thompson's central belief: it is unreasonable to think a fetus's right to life trumps the mother's right to control her own body. Thompson continues by discussing how forcing a woman to carry a baby to term against her wishes violates that woman's right to bodily autonomy and her right to choose when to become a parent. Her argument is fundamentally about bodily autonomy as a right that exists independently of fetal status.
While Thompson's defense of abortion through maternal bodily autonomy is compelling, her approach has a significant limitation: it avoids the central controversy rather than resolving it. If the moral permissibility of abortion is to be clearly determined and defined, an exact point at which the fetus gains the status of a person—and thus the right to life—must be established.
One possible marker for the transformation of a fetus (a grouping of cells) into a human being could be the first sign of brain activity within the womb. This marker would identify the moment when a grouping of cells begins to develop the capacity for thought and activity. From a spiritual standpoint, this could represent the point at which a soul enters the body. Brain activity thus offers a biological correlate to personhood tied to consciousness or the potential for it.
Another possible standard is to monitor the growth of tissues and cells to determine fetal viability—that is, when the fetus could live successfully outside the womb. This indicator is the most widely used in regulating and drafting abortion laws, as it provides an easily determined sign that a fetus has acquired the right to life because it no longer depends on the mother for survival. A combination of these two methods might prove most beneficial: together they could establish when both body and mind are capable of independent life, creating a more comprehensive definition of personhood.
However, both methods have significant limitations and depend heavily on medical technology rather than purely on the fetus's inherent growth or capability. Using brain activity to gauge fetal development appears logical initially, but research reveals that the brain activity shown in the womb is a precondition of fetal development and does not signify actual consciousness. Thus, this marker may not reliably identify the emergence of personhood.
The viability standard appears to be the easiest indicator, which explains its widespread use in law and medicine. However, the results of measuring fetal viability are easily compromised by factors beyond the fetus itself. The ability of a fetus to survive outside the womb depends on the mother's health before and during pregnancy as well as the medical technology and services available. Medical treatment plays a large role: a fetus who could have survived with proper care might die due to lack of proper immunizations or nutrition. Therefore, measuring viability can produce incorrect results and compromise laws or decisions based on those measurements. Viability thresholds also shift with advances in neonatal medicine, making this standard unstable as a legal and ethical foundation.
"Synthesis addressing both maternal and fetal rights"
You’re 79% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.