# Is Judith Thomson’s abortion analogy valid? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 16, 2023, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716 "2023-12-16T23:01:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Jay\_Z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Jay\_Z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jay_Z)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2023, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/81 "2023-12-25T23:33:36Z")
> [@SmartAleq](#): > > Pregnancy and childbirth is a lot closer to donating a kidney and running the risk of not having a functioning one later on if something goes wrong. The fact that maybe all will be well and you CAN function with one kidney doesn’t make it okay to force you to donate. But with the kidney donation, the person being asked to make the sacrifice has nothing to do with why the person needs the kidney. With abortion, there’s an obvious solution to the dilemma. Don’t have sex. Sex potentially creates the new person. So for the situation to be created, the two people involved need to either not care about the consequences of pregnancy or change their minds. So it’s interesting that this analogy refers to the being needing the help as a person. Whereas the point usually is that the aborted fetus is not a person. Because if they are a person, maybe it would be better for this other person if the choice was made before sex if at all possible. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2023, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/82 "2023-12-25T23:49:02Z")
The fuck difference does it make WHY they need a kidney? It’s not like you, as a potential donor, get to violate HIPAA and find out if the possible donee is “worthy” of your kidney. And it doesn’t matter, just like it doesn’t matter that a woman might be carrying the next Einstein or perhaps the next Stalin, that the fetus might grow up to be a serial killer. Nobody knows, so no, you don’t get to know why someone needs the kidney, just that the need exists, you have the means to fix the situation and the only question still remaining is should you be forced to do the right thing? Note that the “right thing” is very much a one sided POV and doesn’t apply equally to all the actors in this scenario. Maybe pay some attention to that? As for the incredibly dismissive “don’t have sex” bullshit–no, the equation is DON’T HAVE SEX WITH MEN. Men are responsible for every single pregnancy AND for every single abortion so any abstaining ought to be on their part. Women don’t fall pregnant by accident, only by carelessness and selfishness on the part of men. Y’all need to fix your own house, seems to me. Keep your dicks strictly to yourselves and won’t be no problem. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/83 "2023-12-26T00:13:32Z")
> [@Jay\_Z](#): > > With abortion, there’s an obvious solution to the dilemma. Don’t have sex. As a child conceived in rape, I’m gonna have to ask you to rethink this assumption. Rethink all of them, actually. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/84 "2023-12-26T00:42:47Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Perhaps not every death is tragic, I hope this doesn’t come off as a hijack, since I can well-address this particular point. My father’s death was not tragic. He was suffering a hell of a lot during his last few weeks, and we were all hoping, and I was praying, that it ended as quickly as it could. Literally, I was praying that if this was his final illness, then let’s be done with it and end his hell. He had signed a DNR that personnel had _ignored_ once, and my mother was canned furiousness over it; he had 12 more days after that-- 12 really awful days. Sometimes the tragedy has already happened, and abortion is damage control, or even just clean-up. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/85 "2023-12-26T01:58:24Z")
A point of clarification, because I think there’s a good bit of talking past each other here. Does anyone disagree that there’s a point in a pregnancy where abortion could be restricted in the absence of some serious medical issue? IOW, a change of heart and nothing more, very late in the pregnancy. To be clear, the question is not if you believe this is exceedingly rare, if it exists at all. You may believe this (I do), but the question is yes or no. And not to be coy, my answer would be yes, but that’s likely to be irrelevant since such a circumstance is exceedingly rare, if it exists at all. But yes. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/86 "2023-12-26T02:21:40Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Does anyone disagree that there’s a point in a pregnancy where abortion could be restricted in the absence of some serious medical issue? Yes, I disagree with that. I think abortion should be unrestricted and at the discretion of women and their doctors, no exceptions. The alternative would be to leave the decision in the hands of a theocratic government, which has been demonstrated to harm women. Until that right is enshrined in law, legislatures will implement more and more hurdles to prevent women from terminating their pregnancies for _any_ reason. This is demonstrable in every state that has restricted abortion. I’m under the impression here that we’re not talking about what’s politically plausible, but rather morally right. Pro-life activists, politicians and legislatures have proven time and time again that they just don’t care about women. They cannot be trusted to make those decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/87 "2023-12-26T02:28:19Z")
Understood. Then we disagree on what may be a complete hypothetical. To use a _reductio ad absurdum_ example, an abortion decision after the woman went into labor after nine months, zero medical issues, should be troubling to anyone, IMO. But I understand your slippery slope concern. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/88 "2023-12-26T02:38:43Z")
Your extreme example would be very troubling to me. I can’t even kill insects. I wish we lived in a more reasonable society. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/89 "2023-12-26T02:47:34Z")
Sorry, I should clarify - on the subject of what’s morally right about abortion law - no restrictions. On the subject of what’s morally right about abortion - plenty of personal restrictions, myself. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/90 "2023-12-26T03:08:39Z")
> [@Jay\_Z](#): > > With abortion, there’s an obvious solution to the dilemma. Don’t have sex. Oh, good grief. For one thing: there’s such a thing as rape. For another thing: it’s nowhere near as simple as “don’t have sex”. Lesbian sex doesn’t cause pregnancy. Male-and-male sex doesn’t cause pregnancy. Oral sex doesn’t cause pregnancy. Anal sex doesn’t cause pregnancy. Sex in which one of the partners is infertile, whether entirely or temporarily, doesn’t cause pregnancy. For a third thing: it’s nowhere near as simple as “don’t have sex” because sex in humans isn’t only for producing more humans; it serves multiple other purposes. Are you seriously suggesting, for instance, that even married couples should just not have sex more than a handful of times in their entire lives? For a fourth thing: it’s nowhere near as simple as “don’t have sex” because in actual literally-fucking practice, people will have sex, including p-in-v sex. People who genuinely believe they might burn in hell forever for having sex nevertheless have sex. True, some people don’t; but most people will. For a fifth thing: it’s nowhere near as simple as “don’t have sex” because those late term abortions you’re so worked up about? Most of them are the result of _wanted_ pregnancies. Are you seriously suggesting that because those women wanted to carry, raise, and love a child they should be required to stand by doing nothing while said child is slowly tortured to death – including at the risk of never being able to have another, and at the risk of dying and leaving their existing children orphaned? > [@SmartAleq](#): > > Women don’t fall pregnant by accident, only by carelessness and selfishness on the part of men. To be fair, sometimes contraception doesn’t work even if it’s used right. > [@Stratocaster](#): > > Does anyone disagree that there’s a point in a pregnancy where abortion could be restricted in the absence of some serious medical issue? IOW, a change of heart and nothing more, very late in the pregnancy. To be clear, the question is not if you believe this is exceedingly rare, if it exists at all. You may believe this (I do), but the question is yes or no. Do you mean, removing a healthy fetus at, say 8 1/2 months, by a technique that kills the fetus before removal instead of by induced vaginal birth or caesarean, when there is no risk to the mother by using one of the latter techniques instead? It can be so restricted by the physician who would have to perform the abortion. And I expect that it would be, if such a thing ever did happen. I very much doubt that it does. But I think it would be the morally correct thing, in such a case, for the physician to refuse. It should not be restricted by the government, because the government is not a physician, and is in no position to tell whether the specific case is actually “a change of heart and nothing more”. I will note that pregnancies are ended by induced labor, all the time; or by caesarians done not in immediate emergency but by appointment. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/91 "2023-12-26T03:39:57Z")
> [@Jay\_Z](#): > > A woman late term is absolutely obligated to bring that child to term in a healthy fashion. Not in my book. She’s got the right to abort up until she gives birth and pronounces the result alive. That doesn’t mean it is morally correct for her to do so, but the person who gets to make that evaluation is her. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/92 "2023-12-26T05:54:18Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > I wish we lived in a more reasonable society. Me, too. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/93 "2023-12-26T11:48:11Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > > > If the violation is _not_ minor and insignificant, that’s another story, and I don’t know where the line is drawn. But it’s not just a matter of Right A trumps Right B whenever they are in conflict. > > It really is that simple. You don’t have the right to someone else’s body. You don’t have the right to decide what is a “minor and insignificant” intrusion on their bodily autonomy (assuming they haven’t committed a crime). This is where the disagreement is. Where the analogy fails. If you fail to do a trivial thing that will save a person’s life, you better hope I’m not on your jury, because I’m voting guilty. Peter Fonda won’t wave his hand to save Judith’s life? Peter Fonda is gonna do hard time if I get to vote on it. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/94 "2023-12-26T13:21:19Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > This is where the disagreement is. Where the analogy fails. If you fail to do a trivial thing that will save a person’s life, you better hope I’m not on your jury, because I’m voting guilty. > > Peter Fonda won’t wave his hand to save Judith’s life? Peter Fonda is gonna do hard time if I get to vote on it. This is exactly where most anti-abortion people sit, except instead of hand-touching as obligatory, the thing is pregnancy. There’s a nice bit of elision they do where they start at “pregnancy is natural and isn’t that bad”, and you demonstrate it’s a serious health risk, and they pivot to "god obligates us to do it. Their point isn’t whether the thing is in fact trivial or insignificant; the fact is that they get to make that decision for others. And FFS it’s not Henry Fonda “waving his hand”, he has to meet her at the physical location and physically touch the person. You’re serving the exact same mindset when you pretend that the action is _even more trivial than the hypothetical_. “C’mon go ahead and do it, how bad can it be.” ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/95 "2023-12-26T13:27:31Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Does anyone disagree that there’s a point in a pregnancy where abortion could be restricted in the absence of some serious medical issue? IOW, a change of heart and nothing more, very late in the pregnancy. To be clear, the question is not if you believe this is exceedingly rare, if it exists at all. If I believe what is exceedingly rare? Abortion is restricted all the time at the 4-week mark. Of course it _could_ be regulated much later, and routinely is. Can you be more clear about the rare thing that you’re asking a black-and-white answer about? What’s the rare thing? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/96 "2023-12-26T14:03:46Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Can you be more clear about the rare thing that you’re asking a black-and-white answer about? What’s the rare thing? Sure. It actually seemed to me that despite some of the raised voices in the thread, that there may not have been a lot of daylight between the various perspectives. There doesn’t seem to be (or I missed it) any “any abortion after conception should be restricted” viewpoints. In my view, and from a practical perspective, I don’t think there would be any difference after the implementation of a late-term ban except with a medical opinion that there’s a dire medical reason. Because I don’t think there are many, if any, late term abortions that are triggered by a change of heart alone. That said, I see at least one opinion that is not troubled to any degree for the latest of late term abortions for any reason whatsoever. And @Spice_Weasel may well be right, that this way lies madness. Anyway, I was trying to clarify how much difference, if any, there was between the opinions offered from a practical standpoint—i.e., what would actually occur if either “side” got their way, and what would actually change in practice? In the end, would anyone really care? ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/97 "2023-12-26T14:26:00Z")
The practical effect of giving in to anti-choice rhetoric about third-trimester abortions is that those abortions end up being illegal, even when they are the moral, logical, medically sound way to go. And, in practical terms, abortions in the eighth or ninth month are just not done because the pregnant person is bored or whatever. If you want to talk about some utopian society, where women are free to choose, with their doctor’s help, what to do with their body, sure, I guess I could say that there shouldn’t be at-will abortions for a 8-month viable fetus. Since those don’t happen, there’s no point for Jay\_Z to bring them up, or even to discuss them at all (@Stratocaster). I think there’s genuine daylight between my view and Jay\_Z’s. In this world, I want zero legal restrictions on abortion, since in this world, women don’t just change their minds at 8 months and doctors won’t do the procedure anyway. Plus, in this world, putting those legal restriction on leads to more restrictions, and more, and then Dobbs. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/98 "2023-12-26T14:27:49Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Anyway, I was trying to clarify how much difference, if any, there was between the opinions offered from a practical standpoint—i.e., what would actually occur if either “side” got their way, and what would actually change in practice? The problem , I think , is that too many people can’t be trusted not to extend the restrictions. I would be fine setting a point at which abortion is no longer simply a matter of choice, where it could only be performed if there was some medical issue (although I’m not sure where that point would be). Except - I don’t trust people. I don’t entirely trust doctors to perform procedures that someone might consider to be an abortion if it requires a legal judgment call. I’m sure most doctors would - but I can’t help but remember a few cases I’ve heard of , where a miscarriage was inevitable but a fetal heartbeat could still be detected where the procedure would not be performed until the woman was actually very ill, rather than when she merely risked her health. In at least one case, the woman died because of the delay. And remember - the miscarriage was inevitable. Supposedly in those jurisdictions, the procedure was allowed if the life or health of the mother was at risk - but apparently the particular doctors involved defined “at risk” very differently than I would ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/99 "2023-12-26T14:36:03Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I think there’s genuine daylight between my view and Jay\_Z’s. I agree now. Thanks to all who provided clarity (@doreen, @Spice_Weasel). My read was naive. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2023, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716/100 "2023-12-26T14:36:32Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > Supposedly in those jurisdictions, the procedure was allowed if the life or health of the mother was at risk - but apparently the particular doctors involved defined “at risk” very differently than I would The issue may not have been the doctors’ definitions, but that the doctors were afraid of the potential consequences of police, judges’, and juries’ definitions. If the law says you can go to jail for years and lose your licence if non-medical people disagree with you about the definition of “at risk” – a lot of doctors and hospitals aren’t going to risk that. Plus which, even if acquitted, they’re running the risk of all the problems related to having been prosecuted; including risk from members of the general public. Which is why the decision needs to be with the physicians and the pregnant person in combination, not with the legislatures and the legal processes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-judith-thomson-s-abortion-analogy-valid/994716.md?page=6)