Abstract
Some have challenged Thomson’s case of the famous unconscious violinist (UV) by arguing that in cases of consensual sex a woman is partially morally responsible for the existence of a needy fetus; since she is partially responsible she ought to assist the fetus, and so abortion is morally wrong. Call this the Responsibility Objection (RO) to UV. In this paper, I briefly criticize one of the most widely discussed objections to RO and then suggest a new way to challenge RO. In so doing, I investigate the plausibility of the moral principle that appears to be driving RO: If a woman is partially morally responsible for the existence of a needy fetus, she has a moral obligation to assist the fetus. I argue that this principle is false. I suggest modified versions of this principle but argue that, even on the most plausible version, RO does not persuade.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Even if one were to agree that a woman is partially morally responsible for the existence of a needy being, it still seems relevant that its neediness is not the result of an injury perpetrated against it.
I am not here claiming that I in fact support this principle, or any version of OA. I am merely pointing out that if one were interested in defending RO, and if one were to invoke a principle like OA in such a defense, this version of OA appears to be the most plausible version of the principle. Moreover, I am not interested in refuting this version of OA. As I said, I find it fairly plausible. I will go on to argue, however, that this version of OA does not do the work that defenders of RO would like it to do.
I would like to thank an anonymous referee for suggesting this version of OA.
I also think that it is important to acknowledge that the cost to the woman in any case of an unwanted pregnancy is likely to be rather high.
References
Boonin, D. 2003. A defense of abortion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lang, G. 2008. Nudging the responsibility objection. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25(1): 56–71.
McMahan, J. 2002. The ethics of killing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thomson, J.J. 1971. A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1(1): 47–66.
Tooley, M. 1983. Abortion and infanticide. Oxford: Clarendon.
Warren, M. 1973. On the moral and legal status of abortion. The Monist 57(4): 47–61.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hine, K. How to Understand a Woman’s Obligations to the Fetus in Unwanted Pregnancies. Bioethical Inquiry 10, 239–247 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-013-9435-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-013-9435-x