The child on the other hand won't be crushed to death; if nothing is done to stop him from growing he'll be hurt, but in the end he'll simply burst open the house and walk out a free man.
The child on the other hand won't be crushed to death; if nothing is done to stop him from growing he'll be hurt, but in the end he'll simply burst open the house and walk out a free man.Tags: Interesting Creative Writing PromptsEssays On Kate Chopin The Story Of An HourInterpretive Essay HistoryApa Paper Thesis StatementHow To Write A Journal EssayGre Argument Essay Pool
The fact that she does adds to the offensiveness of deducing that the mother can do nothing from the supposition that third parties can do nothing.
But it does more than this: it casts a bright light on the supposition that third parties can do nothing.
This analogy raises the issue of whether all abortions are unjust killing.
Thomson does not support unlimited abortion rights.
"[I]f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due." For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's legitimate right to life, but merely deprives the fetus of something—the non-consensual use of the pregnant woman's body and life-support functions—to which it has no right.
Thus, by choosing to terminate her pregnancy, Thomson concludes that a pregnant woman does not normally violate the fetus's right to life, but merely withdraws its use of her own body, which usually causes the fetus to die.You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy.As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective; and a seed drifts in and takes root.She gives as an example a hypothetical woman who seeks a late-term abortion "just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad" and declares this to be "positively indecent".Thomson also explicitly rejects the claim that pregnant women have a right to kill their offspring.If the doctor refuses, then the woman is denied her right.To base the woman's right on the accordance or refusal of a doctor, she says, is to ignore the mother's full personhood, and subsequently, her rights to her body.Thomson presents the hypothetical example of the 'expanding child': Suppose you find yourself trapped in a tiny house with a growing child.I mean a very tiny house, and a rapidly growing child—you are already up against the wall of the house and in a few minutes you'll be crushed to death.In such a case, the mother's life is being threatened, and the fetus is the one who threatens it.Because for no reason should the mother's life be threatened, and also for no reason is the fetus threatening it, both are innocent, and thus no third party can intervene.