In "A Defense of Abortion" Judith Jarvis Thompson claims that granting personhood and, hence, a right to life, to a fetus entails neither the exception less impermissibility of abortion (the extreme view) nor the more moderate view that restricts the permissibility of abortions to cases where the mother's life is threatened. Both claims, according to Thompson, require additional dubious premises.
In the case where a mother's life is threatened, as mothers are also persons with rights to life, additional premises are required to promote the rights of the infant over those of the mother, especially because it seems a mother has an additional right to her own body. Pumping our intuitions with various thought experiments including violinists and Henry Fonda Thompson suggests that the additional premises cannot be made out.
In cases where a mother's life is not threatened the questions turn to what the right to life entails and whether and when one can obtain rights to another's body. Again using thought experiments (involving burglars, window bars, and small armies) Thompson suggests that ultimately the right to life only entails the right not to be killed unjustly and at best only some cases involving voluntary acts are candidates for prohibition.
In an attempt to better explain her considered views on the harder cases Thompson also introduces us to the contrast between a moral right and moral decency and the good and minimally decent Samaritan.
Utilizing some/all the concepts in bold face make an initial post that outlines how some concerns over abortion remain even if we put the issue of personhood to the side. Make sure to lay out the parameters of the debate such that: 1) You give a general reader a reason to care; 2) You provide a clear presentation of the sources of the underlying moral tension; 3) You offer reasons in support of both sides of the debate by showing how each is related to more general underwriting moral principles. You then must make a second post replying