Thomson's idea of a tenant/owner relationship between the foetus and mother is trying to convince readers that:-
(1) The foetus' right to stay in the mother's womb is absolutely granted by the mother herself only with only her permission under her one-sided determination of terms for the foetus' possible continuous stay inside her.
(2) Thomson has assumed a dominating role of the mother as a non-negotiable owner of her womb without the need of seeking any agreement from anybody else, not even the foetus as her tenant. Her womb as part of her body must be under her sole control. Others no say, not even her husband.
(3) Of course such an analogy sounds very odd, as no owner can come up with a tenancy agreement with anyone as tenant but purely on her own owner's terms (tenant, no say) and such an unfair tenancy agreement will also be not valid and not fair both legally and morally.
[The relationship between a pregnant mother and her foetus normally should not be so unnaturally "cold-blooded". It may happen only when the pregnant mother finds the foetus a nuisance, a burden, an irritation, a disgusting object, an alien, a threat to her own health... etc. Except perhaps due to the issue with her own health, otherwise, if because of all other issues as said, she should perhaps seek psychiatric counselling before she demands abortion.]
(4) Talent or fool were the foetus to become in future should not be Thomson's issue, or our concern in our discussion here.
(5) Indeed Thomson in the end of her discussion paper, has admitted that she regards the foetus as an entity WITHOUT personhood at all. And therefore to her, abortion is not killing a person, not a murder act. To her, whether or not all pregnant mothers should share some common societal duties to ensure all foetuses as potential "good and talented" lives should or are to be saved and protected is none of her concern. To her, once the pregnant mother decides to abort the foetus, that is it, her power and her authority. No one has the right to stop her. She need not bother to consider any bright future for the foetus. That is Thomson's perspective.
Thomson's idea of a tenant/owner relationship between the foetus and mother is trying to convince readers that:-
ReplyDelete(1) The foetus' right to stay in the mother's womb is absolutely granted by the mother herself only with only her permission under her one-sided determination of terms for the foetus' possible continuous stay inside her.
(2) Thomson has assumed a dominating role of the mother as a non-negotiable owner of her womb without the need of seeking any agreement from anybody else, not even the foetus as her tenant. Her womb as part of her body must be under her sole control. Others no say, not even her husband.
(3) Of course such an analogy sounds very odd, as no owner can come up with a tenancy agreement with anyone as tenant but purely on her own owner's terms (tenant, no say) and such an unfair tenancy agreement will also be not valid and not fair both legally and morally.
[The relationship between a pregnant mother and her foetus normally should not be so unnaturally "cold-blooded". It may happen only when the pregnant mother finds the foetus a nuisance, a burden, an irritation, a disgusting object, an alien, a threat to her own health... etc. Except perhaps due to the issue with her own health, otherwise, if because of all other issues as said, she should perhaps seek psychiatric counselling before she demands abortion.]
(4) Talent or fool were the foetus to become in future should not be Thomson's issue, or our concern in our discussion here.
(5) Indeed Thomson in the end of her discussion paper, has admitted that she regards the foetus as an entity WITHOUT personhood at all. And therefore to her, abortion is not killing a person, not a murder act. To her, whether or not all pregnant mothers should share some common societal duties to ensure all foetuses as potential "good and talented" lives should or are to be saved and protected is none of her concern. To her, once the pregnant mother decides to abort the foetus, that is it, her power and her authority. No one has the right to stop her. She need not bother to consider any bright future for the foetus. That is Thomson's perspective.