Gunther: - Argues for free speech despite admitting the harm that various forms of speech can have (he was raised as a Jew in Nazi Germany). - Has an 'absolutist' interpretation of the first amendment, where any attempt to curb the scope of free speech should be viewed with "skepticism and suspicion". - Argues that it is only the political extremes, who either reject the constitution or would have it not apply to their political opponents that typically argue for censorship. - Unlike Bork, he feels that protection of the first amendment is protection of the "anti-majority" LT: Best to let free speech reign and have people learn to argue their case against racial slurs etc. Creates a more empowered society. Restricting speech disempowers. Showing empowerment will render racial slurs impotent. - Being harmful not sufficient for being banned. Equality only real when people have the power to speak and rise up in moral indignation against those who would use racial slurs and the like. Part of Gunther's point (according to LT) is that democracy only works wh

Thomson: Thomson claims that even if we grant that the fetus is a person, and has a right to life, it would not follow that abortion is impermissible in a large range of cases. It is important that JJT never actually claims that the fetus is a person; she thinks that acorns aren't oak trees and similarly, fetuses aren't people even though both the acorn and the fetus develop into trees and persons respectively. But she grants it for the sake of argument because it is impossible to tell at what point the fetus starts being a person. So, anyway, here's the pro life argument once you grant that the fetus is a person: a) All persons deserve the right to life b) the fetus is a person c) the fetus has a right to life d) abortion is a violation of the right to life e) abortion is a violation of the fetus' right to life and thus impermissible. Thomson makes several analogies to show why the argument above is flawed. a) The fetus will kill the mother: surely we think that people have the right to kill someone who is out to kill them, in self defense. If the fetus is going to kill the mother, the mother surely has a right to terminate the pregnancy in self defense. The analogy? Imagine a baby was growing quickly and would crush you if you didn't kill it. Surely you can kill it in this case to save your life. But then why not the fetus? b) The woman was raped and impregnated: Imagine you are kidnapped in the night and wake up with you kidneys hooked up to a violinist. Imagine the violinist needed to use your kidneys for nine months or he would die. Surely, Thomson claims, you have the right to unplug yourself. It may be nice to let him use your kidneys, but he has not right to them. He has the right to life, but not the right to use you to live. Similarly, the fetus does not have a right to the mother's body, even though it does have a right to life. It simply does not have a right to life within the mother's body. c) The woman used contraceptives which failed: Imagine a world where babies can be brought to life by spores landing on carpets and growing. Being responsible and not wanting kids, you buy mesh screen for your windows. But the mesh fails sometimes and sure enough, you open the window one summer and a fetus starts growing on your couch. Thomson think that surely you may kill the li'l bugger before it becomes a baby. Similarly, Thomson think that women who practice safe sex may abort the fetus. The fetus has the right to life, but not the right to use a body to grow in. Precautions were taken to keep a fetus from coming about and if those precautions fail, through no fault of the woman, surely she shouldn't have to let the fetus use her body to grow. The point in all of these is as follows: premise (d) above is false; abortion is not always a violation of the right to life. Why? Because the right to life is NOT: i) the right to anything htat keeps you alive: if it was, you could get Henry Fonda (when he was alive) to come and touch your forehead if you had the 'Henry Fonda disease'. But you don't have that right. Nor does the violinist get the right to use your body. ii) the right not to be killed: sometimes you can be killed, like if you are killed by someone in self defense. So, Thomson maintains the rather vague: iii) You have the right not to be killed unjustly. This is important: some killings are o.k. because they are not unjust. Abortion in the cases above, according to Thomson, are not unjust. Therefore, they are permissible and the pro-life argument does not go through. For Thomson, the fact that the fetus dies during an abortion is a sorry fact about the world. But we are not trying to kill the fetus in an abortion, we are trying to remove it. Similarly for the violinist. We aren't trying to kill the violinist, we just want to remove ourselves from being attached to it. Also, Thomson notes that she is not arguing for the permissibility of abortion; she is arguing against its impressibility in certain cases (rape, a kil

Some topics in this essay:
Henry Fonda, Bork Plato, Kant Kant, Unlike Bork, BK Plato, Democracy Bork, Dr Jeckyll, Finally Thrasymachus, Thomson Thomson, Sartre Sartre, book ii, fetus person, bottom line, moral character, moral law, treating people, fetus life, abortion violation, fetus kill, free speech, fetus kill mother, anti-absolutist focuses harm, fetus feels pain, book ii book, life abortion violation,