The subject of my article is abortion. In Judith Jarvis Thomson's article, "A Defense of Abortion," she presented a typical anti-abortion argument and attempted to prove it false. I believe there is good reason to recognize that the argument is valid and that Thompson's criticisms of it are false. The typical argument against abortion is: 1. Every fetus is a person, 2. Every person has the right to life, 3. Every fetus has the right to life [1,2], 4. Everything that has the right to life cannot be killed, 5. Every fetus cannot be killed [3,4]. Premise 1 is taken from page 297 of our book when Thompson states: "Most opposition to abortion is based on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person..." Premise 2 and conclusion 3 are taken from page 298 when Thomson says “Every person has the right to life. The fetus therefore has the right to life. Premise 4 is taken from page 298 when Thomson states: “The fetus therefore cannot be killed. » She does not explicitly state the principle that "everything that has a right to life cannot be killed", but we can infer it since in the previous premises she stated that every fetus is a person and that every no one has the right to life. So, since this is true, we can substitute the fetus for anything that has a right to life, thereby declaring that anything that has a right to life cannot be killed. Conclusion 5 is also not stated directly in Thomson's article, but follows directly from the premises stated in his article. I will first prove that premise 1, “Every fetus is a person,” is true. The definition of person according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is “a human being.” Surely no one would consider a fetus to be anything other than a human being, like a primate or a dog. But some might still say, “Well, it's not alive…… middle of paper……r (directly killing the baby in the womb or slitting the violinist's throat). I believe the difference is very clear and therefore disproves the case of Thompson's unconscious violinist. This means that premise 4 is still true. In conclusion, Thompson's criticisms of the standard anti-abortion argument are false, because premise 1 remains true as long as life begins at conception. the time when the fetus begins to grow. Premise 2 remains alive because murder is both illegal and morally wrong. Why because you are depriving them of their future and hurting the people who love the victim. because there is a difference between not helping someone live and directly killing them, thus proving that the case of the unconscious violinist is not analogous. Overall, the standard anti-abortion argument remains a strong one..