Question

It is a clear consequence of Thomson's argument that, as Thomson sees things, the fact that the fetus is the child of the biological mother entitles it to use the mother's body whatever the wishes of the mother happen to be.

A) True
B) False

Answer 1

The claim that Judith Jarvis Thomson sees a fetus's right to use the mother's body as unconditional is false. Thomson's argument emphasizes the pregnant person's right to bodily autonomy, asserting that it may override the fetus's right to life.

Step-by-step explanation:

The statement in question implies that Judith Jarvis Thomson would argue that a fetus has an unconditional right to use the mother's body due to biological relation, regardless of the mother's wishes. This is false. Thomson's argument in 'A Defense of Abortion' is that even if we grant a fetus a right to life, it does not follow that this right to life trumps the pregnant person's right to bodily autonomy.

She uses a thought experiment involving a violinist to illustrate that being physically attached to another person without consent does not necessarily entitle the attached person (the fetus or the violinist) to continue using another’s body (the mother's or the person kidnapped to support the violinist). Therefore, according to Thomson, a fetus does not have the right to use the mother's body against her will, even if it possesses a right to life.