Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T00:50:46.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response to “Commentary on Thomson's Violinist and Conjoined Twins” by John K. Davis (CQ Vol 8, No 4)

Reply to Davis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2000

Abstract

The point of Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist example is to establish that one person, A, can acquire a right to use the body of another person, B, if and only if B performs some kind of affirmative act that gives A such a right. On her view, the reason it is permissible for you to unplug yourself from the violinist is that you did nothing to give the violinist a right to use your body: the violinist was plugged into you without your consent. Thus it follows that the mere fact that A needs use of B's body to survive is not enough to give rise to a right in A to use B's body. Accordingly, Thomson concludes, the claim that the fetus has a right to life does not imply abortion is morally impermissible.

Type
RESPONSES AND DIALOGUE
Copyright
© 2000 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)