\documentstyle[12pt,timrom]{report}
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2.0}
\setlength{\parindent}{0.3 in}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6 in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.25 in}
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.25 in}
\setlength{\textheight}{8.5 in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{0.0 in}
\begin{titlepage}
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.0}
\vspace*{1.5 in}
{\center \Huge How a Passage from ``A Defense of Abortion'' Relates
to the Essay \\}
\vspace*{2 in}
{\center \large Marc Horowitz \\
November 2, 1988 \\}
\vspace*{1 in}
{\center \normalsize Professor Michael Hardimon \\
Recitation Section 4, TA Larry Kaye \\}
\end{titlepage}
\begin{document}
{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.0}
\begin{large}
\noindent
{\bf Thesis:} The passage contains many of the basic concepts which
Thomson uses to defend the permissibility of abortion.  Each of these
concepts contributes to proving that a person, specifically the fetus,
cannot have a right to another person's body under any circumstances.
\end{large}}

\vspace*{0.3 in}
In ``A Defense of Abortion,'' Thomson attempts to prove that abortion
is permissible.  She does this by assuming the anti-abortionists'
basic premise, that the fetus is a person with rights, and proving
that an abortion can still be justified.  The passage expresses many
of the fundamental concepts which Thomson uses in her proof.

Thomson begins her proof with the basic assumption that the fetus is
a person.  Her goal is to show that because the fetus is a person with
the rights of a person, it has no special rights which make abortion
impermissible.  Each part of her argument is built specifically in
response to the arguments of abortion's opponents.

One of the anti-abortionists' main arguments states that because the
fetus is a person, it has a right to life.  The mother, also a person,
has the right to control of her own body.  Anti-abortionists maintain
that the mother cannot have an abortion because it will violate the
fetus's right to life.  Thomson says that this is not necessarily the
case; the right to life has a limited scope.  If the right to life is
defined as the right to have at least the minimum necessary to sustain
life, then one must consider the situation where the person has no
right to those things which comprise the minimum requirements for
life.  As an example, Thomson puts forward the case of the violinist.
His bare minimum needs for life include your kidneys, but that does
not mean that he has a right to use them without your approval.  A
fetus's bare minimum needs include the mother's body, but that does
not imply that the fetus has a right to use her body without her
consent.  If the right to life is defined more strictly as the right
not to be killed unjustly, then another problem arises.  The violinist
could argue that since you are attached, no one has the right to step
in and separate you.  However, since you are in control of your body,
you do have the right to separate, since you never explictly gave the
violinist the right to use your kidneys.

In order to further prove this, Thomson makes a distinction between
what a person is required to do and what would be nice if he did.  A
person is not required in any case to donate his body for temporary
use.  Because this is not a requirement, it must just be a nice thing
to do.  But if it is a nice thing to do, then it is not a right of the
violinist to have it done.  By making the distinction, Thomson is able
to prove that it is not the violinist's right to use the other
person's body.  Similarly, a fetus does not have the right to use the
mother's body.  

A similar conclusion is reached by looking at the Biblical example of
the Good Samaritan.  The Good Samaritan is someone who is willing to
undergo personal hardship and expense to help someone else.  This is a
nice thing to do, but not an obligation.  Thomson contrasts this case
with the case of the Minimally Decent Samaritan, who does what is
necessary to help, but does not endure any hardship.  This she
considers an obligation; if a person can help without giving up any
rights, he or she is obligated to do so.  Evidently, a pregnant woman
is being extraordinarily kind by carrying the fetus for nine months.
Most likely, she will be restricted in physical exertion, travel,
work, and might even become sick as a result of the pregnancy.
Because this is such a personal sacrifice, she is not obligated to
carry the fetus and is permitted to abort if necessary.

After hearing the last several arguments, the anti-abortionist might
claim that the mother has a special responsibility toward the fetus.
Thomson would argue that a person has certain responsibilites, but
that additional, special responibilities would require that the person
explicitly accept them.  This is another way of expressing Thomson's
principle that a person's rights are inalienable unless that person
negates them.  If you were kind enough to commit to staying with the
violinist for nine months, then it is his right to use your kidneys,
but only because you have given him the right by assuming the
responsibility.  A fetus is in the mother's body only because she
wants it to be there.  If it is there against the mother's wishes, it
can be removed.  If the mother commits to carrying the fetus, then she
has an obligation to take care of the fetus and it has that right, but
this stems from her own acceptance of that responsibility. not from
any responsibility stemming from their biological relationship.

The arguments presented here show how the basic ideas expressed in the
passage relate to Thomson's argument for the permissibility of
abortion.  The scope of the right to life, the distinction between
what is obligatory and what is nice, and the circumstances which can
lead to special responsibilities all lead to the conclusion that the
right to life cannot allow a person to take control of another
person's body.  Thomson demonstrates this with the example of the
violinist, a person who needs another person to survive, showing that
he has no right to use another person's body.  This is the same
situation as a fetus, which is also a person who needs another person
to survive.  Because the fetus has no intrinsic right to use the
mother's body, it is permissible for the mother to have an abortion.
\end{document}
