Audio Transcript Auto-generated
- 00:01 - 00:02
Hello,
- 00:02 - 00:04
this is my abortion presi informative speech
- 00:04 - 00:07
on Judith Jarvis Thompson's arguments for abortion.
- 00:07 - 00:10
Using premises and conclusions.
- 00:13 - 00:16
Imagine you are kidnapped and wake up in a
- 00:16 - 00:20
strange room on a bed beside an unconscious stranger.
- 00:20 - 00:24
You were informed that you and this person are connected through dialysis.
- 00:24 - 00:27
Your kidneys are saving this person and you are
- 00:27 - 00:29
the only one who is compatible with them.
- 00:30 - 00:31
In other words,
- 00:31 - 00:33
you're the only one who can save them
- 00:34 - 00:40
to save them. However, you will need to lay in this bed connected for nine months.
- 00:40 - 00:43
Is it morally permissible to disconnect yourself from this person?
- 00:44 - 00:47
Hi, my name is Sydney right card Today,
- 00:47 - 00:50
I will be informing you about Judith Jarvis Thompson,
- 00:50 - 00:53
who uses many analogies to support her argument about
- 00:53 - 00:55
why women should be allowed to have an abortion,
- 00:55 - 00:59
even if the premises accepted that a fetus has a moral right to life
- 01:03 - 01:05
is a fetus morally a person
- 01:05 - 01:09
Thompson begins her argument by using the argument of the pro life,
- 01:09 - 01:11
opinion giving premises and a conclusion.
- 01:12 - 01:15
The first premise is that a fetus is morally a person.
- 01:15 - 01:20
The second premise is that that person's have a moral right to life.
- 01:20 - 01:24
The third premise is that because persons have a moral right to life,
- 01:24 - 01:27
then fetuses also have a moral right to life.
- 01:27 - 01:31
The 4th 4th premise is that if fetuses have a moral
- 01:31 - 01:35
right to life than having an abortion is morally impermissible.
- 01:35 - 01:40
Therefore, given these premises, the conclusion is that abortion is morally wrong
- 01:41 - 01:46
to begin her argument thomas assumes that the conservatives argument is correct.
- 01:46 - 01:51
A c uh fetus has a serious moral right to life at conception.
- 01:52 - 01:53
Using this assumption,
- 01:53 - 01:55
she then uses analogies to try to prove that
- 01:55 - 01:58
the pro choice argument can still stand with.
- 01:58 - 02:01
The conservatives view that a fetus has a moral right to life.
- 02:05 - 02:07
Imagine you were kidnapped and wake up beside
- 02:07 - 02:10
a violinist with whom you are connected.
- 02:10 - 02:12
You are told that this violinist will die without your
- 02:12 - 02:17
kidneys and therefore needs constant dialysis to save them.
- 02:17 - 02:19
You will need to be connected for nine months.
- 02:20 - 02:22
This violinist has a moral right to life, Does he not?
- 02:22 - 02:26
Is it a more immoral to disconnect yourself from the violinist?
- 02:26 - 02:30
Most people would say that, no, it's not immoral, after all,
- 02:30 - 02:34
you didn't choose to be there, You were kidnapped.
- 02:38 - 02:41
So does the violinist have a right to your kidneys?
- 02:42 - 02:46
Violinist does have a right to life, but in a non interference way,
- 02:46 - 02:47
for example,
- 02:48 - 02:52
you can't disconnect yourself and then slip the violinists throat.
- 02:52 - 02:55
This is referred to as a negative versus positive right.
- 02:56 - 03:00
In the negative sense, the violinist has a right that you do not kill him,
- 03:00 - 03:04
but in the positive sense, the violinist does not have a right to your kidneys.
- 03:04 - 03:06
In other words, your body
- 03:07 - 03:09
Thompson uses this violinist analogy to argue
- 03:09 - 03:12
for the legality of abortion using premises.
- 03:12 - 03:13
And a conclusion.
- 03:13 - 03:18
The first premise is if it is morally permissible to disconnect yourself from the
- 03:18 - 03:21
violinist than it is morally permissible morally
- 03:21 - 03:24
permissible to disconnect yourself from a fetus.
- 03:24 - 03:26
The second premise is that it is
- 03:27 - 03:33
if it is morally permissible to disconnect yourself from the violinist,
- 03:33 - 03:35
then based on the premises,
- 03:36 - 03:39
it is morally permissible to disconnect yourself from a fetus.
- 03:39 - 03:42
In other words, it is morally permissible to have an abortion.
- 03:49 - 03:51
There we go.
- 03:52 - 03:54
The issue with this argument, however,
- 03:54 - 03:59
is that Thompson provides a dis analogy in the violinist analogy,
- 03:59 - 04:00
you have been kidnapped,
- 04:00 - 04:04
you have not willingly entered into dialysis by your own choice.
- 04:04 - 04:08
Therefore, this analogy argument only stands in the case of rape.
- 04:12 - 04:15
Imagine you open your window to let the cool breeze inside
- 04:15 - 04:18
while it's open a burglar sneaks into your home,
- 04:18 - 04:20
you catch him in your home,
- 04:20 - 04:25
should you be offering him a room or are you allowed to kick him out of your house?
- 04:25 - 04:27
This burglar has a moral right to life,
- 04:27 - 04:30
Thompson uses this analogy to argue for the
- 04:30 - 04:32
legality of abortion using premises and a conclusion.
- 04:33 - 04:36
The first premise is that if it is morally permissible to kick a
- 04:36 - 04:41
burglar that snuck into your house without your consent out of your home,
- 04:41 - 04:45
than it is morally permissible to kick a fetus out of your room,
- 04:45 - 04:47
that as a result of an accidental pregnancy.
- 04:48 - 04:52
The second premise is that it is morally permissible to kick
- 04:52 - 04:55
out a burglar that snuck into your home without your consent.
- 04:55 - 04:58
Therefore, in thomas Thompson's conclusion,
- 04:58 - 05:02
then it is morally permissible to kick a fetus out of your room.
- 05:02 - 05:05
In other words is morally permissible to have an
- 05:05 - 05:08
abortion in the case of an accidental pregnancy.
- 05:14 - 05:17
However, there is again a dis analogy
- 05:17 - 05:22
in the burglar analogy, you do not consent to the burglar entering your home,
- 05:22 - 05:24
so this was not a choice you could have made.
- 05:24 - 05:28
Therefore, this analogy argument only stands in the case of rape.
- 05:30 - 05:31
Yeah,
- 05:33 - 05:35
imagine you open your window
- 05:35 - 05:36
again,
- 05:36 - 05:39
you want to let in that cool breeze This time there's
- 05:39 - 05:43
a tree outside of your window that is dropping people seats.
- 05:44 - 05:46
You have a you have a screen on your window
- 05:46 - 05:50
that is 99% effective to keep the people seats out.
- 05:50 - 05:54
However, a people see it gets through the screen and embeds in your carpet,
- 05:55 - 05:57
Thompson uses this analogy to argue for the
- 05:57 - 05:59
legality of abortion using premises and a conclusion.
- 06:00 - 06:03
The first premise is that if it is morally permissible to
- 06:03 - 06:07
uproot people seeds that flew through your 99% effective window screen,
- 06:08 - 06:11
then it is morally permissible to uproot a fetus
- 06:11 - 06:14
concedes while using a 99% effective birth control.
- 06:15 - 06:19
The second premise is that it is morally permissible to uproot
- 06:19 - 06:22
these people seeds that get through your 99% effective window screen.
- 06:23 - 06:24
Therefore,
- 06:24 - 06:27
Thompson concludes it is morally permissible to uproot a fetus
- 06:27 - 06:31
concedes while using a 99% effective birth control method.
- 06:33 - 06:33
Yeah,
- 06:36 - 06:38
there is however, excuse me,
- 06:39 - 06:43
a possible dis analogy when Thompson discusses people seats
- 06:43 - 06:47
even if it is assumed that a fetus has a serious moral right to life
- 06:48 - 06:50
is not assumed that people seeds have a
- 06:50 - 06:52
serious moral right to life With this analogy,
- 06:52 - 06:57
thomas is essentially saying that abortion is permissible in some cases,
- 06:57 - 06:59
but what does Thompson mean by abortion
- 06:59 - 07:00
after all,
- 07:00 - 07:03
detaching oneself from a fetus is different
- 07:03 - 07:05
than the procedure of a medical abortion.
- 07:06 - 07:09
Thomas's argument for abortion is essentially that killing is wrong,
- 07:09 - 07:14
but letting die is okay if a woman detaches herself from the fetus and it dies,
- 07:14 - 07:15
this is morally permissible.
- 07:16 - 07:20
However, if a woman detaches herself from the fetus and it lives,
- 07:20 - 07:22
it must be given up for adoption or taken care of
- 07:22 - 07:25
by the woman and in this case cannot be killed.
- 07:25 - 07:25
Mm
- 07:29 - 07:29
Yeah,
- 07:31 - 07:34
Thompson's last argument for the legality of abortion
- 07:34 - 07:37
is the box of chocolates thought experiment.
- 07:37 - 07:40
So, imagine you have a box of chocolates.
- 07:40 - 07:45
Your little brother or sister is hungry and loves chocolate.
- 07:45 - 07:50
You are eating the chocolates. Is it wrong for you to not offer him a chocolate
- 07:50 - 07:51
to this,
- 07:51 - 07:54
Thompson argues that it is indecent to not offer
- 07:54 - 07:56
your brother a chocolate but it is not immoral
- 07:56 - 07:59
Thompson then uses this analogy to argue for the
- 07:59 - 08:02
legality of abortion using premises and a conclusion.
- 08:04 - 08:04
Mm hmm.
- 08:06 - 08:09
The first premise is that your brother is not entitled to your
- 08:09 - 08:12
chocolates and the fetus is not entitled to the woman's body.
- 08:12 - 08:15
If it is indecent to not share your chocolates with your brother,
- 08:15 - 08:18
but it is not immoral, then it is the same for a fetus.
- 08:19 - 08:21
The second premise is that it is not that it
- 08:21 - 08:24
is indecent to not share your chocolates with your brother,
- 08:24 - 08:26
but it is not immoral because he is
- 08:26 - 08:29
not entitled to your chocolates with these premises,
- 08:29 - 08:33
Thompson concludes that it is indecent to not share your body with your fetus,
- 08:33 - 08:37
but it is not immoral because the fetus is not entitled to your butt.
- 08:43 - 08:47
In conclusion, thomas's arguments can be split into two categories,
- 08:47 - 08:50
argument from self defense and argument from dependence.
- 08:51 - 08:54
These arguments provide many dis analogies and have been quite frequently
- 08:54 - 08:58
either edited or disproven by both pro lifers and pro choicers.
- 08:59 - 09:01
Pro choice is agree with Thompson saying that a fetus
- 09:01 - 09:03
does not have a positive right to a woman's body.
- 09:07 - 09:07
Yeah.
- 09:08 - 09:09
So
- 09:10 - 09:11
what do you think?
- 09:11 - 09:16
Do tom do Thompson's arguments work for the pro life stance or the pro choice stance?
- 09:16 - 09:18
Or to the dis analogies?
- 09:18 - 09:20
In Thompson's arguments disqualify them from
- 09:20 - 09:23
being used entirely in either stance.
- 09:25 - 09:25
Thank you