Judith Thomson provided one of the most striking and effective thought experiments in the moral realm (see Thomson, 1971). Her example is aimed at a popular anti-abortion argument that goes something like this: the fetus is an innocent person. All innocent persons have a right to life. Abortion results in the death of a fetus. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong. In her thought experiment we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person. All innocent persons have a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.
Abortion is morally right
Other urls found in this thread:
digitalcommons.law.yale.edu
twitter.com
It's interesting that when brutes are presented with a thought experiment they go silent.
Not anecdotal or cartoony enough for you?
Babbbys 1st applied ethics class
I remember that bullshit class
Kirei at the end of Heaven's Feel does a good job of defending he innocent.
Even if something is born to be evil and the end of the world, it still has to be born to have judgement passed on it.
If you kill it before it is born, there is a murder that occurred, even if it was to prevent the greater loss of life.
Read the fucking OP. Shows that it's not murder
This argument seems very powerful upon first (and even fifth) readings. Greg Koukl, of Stand to Reason, mentions that the first time he ever heard it was on a radio talk show, while he was driving down the 405 freeway in Los Angeles. It shook him up so much he almost had to pull over. It’s a very powerful argument because she is essentially conceding the main premise of the pro-life position: Yes, the preborn are full human persons from fertilization, but she continues to argue that abortion is morally permissible
Once you dig deeper we realize that there are parallels which aren’t really parallel in morally significant ways and as such, the argument fails to be a successful argument for the legality and/or morality of abortion. There are some objections that are stronger than others. I’ll start from the weaker objections and end with the strongest objection to this position.
>You must stay in a hospital bed plugged into the violinist, whereas most pregnant women are not bedridden.
In the violinist analogy, you must stay in the hospital bed plugged into the violinist for nine months (or amended to years or the rest of your life). However, most women are not bedridden for nine months. They can still go to the store, go to church, go to school, and/or work for most of the pregnancy. As Dr. Bernard Nathanson has written, “Few pregnant women are bedridden and many, both emotionally and physically, have never felt better. For these, it is a stimulating experience, even for mothers who did not originally want to be pregnant.”
I list this first because while it’s true for some cases, it’s not true for all pregnancies. There are rare cases in which women must stay bedridden for most of their pregnancies (e.g. if she has preeclampsia or an incompetent cervix). Although this isn’t true for most pregnancies, this objection would not hold true for women who are bedridden.
continued...
>The pregnant woman’s relationship to the child in contrast to the violinist.
One problem with the analogy is that this argument rests on the premise that a woman’s responsibility to her own child is no different than your responsibility to a complete stranger. This is clearly false. While it is a very good thing to feed the homeless, I don’t believe you have a moral obligation to do so. However, you do have a moral obligation to feed your own children. So you clearly have more obligation to your own offspring than you do to a complete stranger.
The reason I have included this second is because philosophically, the argument can be made that under a bodily rights argument the woman has no moral obligation to stay “plugged in” to her own child. What if we amend the analogy and say instead of the violinist, you wake up and it’s your own son that you’re plugged in to. People may rightly look down on a parent who would unplug from their own child and allow their child to die, but morally you don’t seem to bear a responsibility to stay plugged in.
>You are unplugging from the violinist, whereas in most abortions, the embryo/fetus is being directly killed.
In this analogy, you are simply unplugging from the violinist and allowing him to die. Whereas in surgical abortions, the child is actually being physically killed (usually through dismemberment, poisoning, or crushing). As Frank Beckwith points out, “Euphemistically calling abortion the ‘withholding of support’ makes about as much sense as calling suffocating someone with a pillow the withdrawing of oxygen.”
This also isn’t the strongest of objections because the analogy would still justify abortions not done surgically. Abortion pills like RU-486 simply prevent implantation, the preborn child starves and is flushed out of the woman’s body. RU-486 is more like “unplugging” from the preborn child.
continued...
>All innocent persons have a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.
>The woman is partially responsible for the existence of her offspring.
Now we get to the most powerful objection to the violinist analogy. Simply, you are not responsible for the condition the violinist finds himself in but in the vast majority of pregnancies, the preborn child exists because of a consensual act between a man and a woman. While this is a very powerful objection to the violinist analogy, admittedly this objection does not work in the case of rape, in which she is not responsible for the child’s presence.
David Boonin, who has written one of the best defenses of abortion, makes the case that we must distinguish between being responsible for one’s condition of neediness and being responsible for one’s existence with the result that they are in need. Boonin amends the violinist analogy to suppose this violinist comes into the hospital dying of a fatal ailment. A doctor, in an act of generosity, administers the drug to cure him but several years later the violinist develops the kidney ailment in Thomson’s analogy. The doctor has the correct blood type to help assist the violinist. Boonin argues that the doctor is responsible for the violinist’s continued existence, but is not responsible for the kidney ailment the violinist now finds himself afflicted with.
continued...
However, Boonin’s argument fails for a simple reason. The doctor, in an act of generosity, extended the violinist’s life. He did not bring the violinist into existence in a needy condition, as a man and woman does when they engage in sexual intercourse.
So as we can see, bodily rights arguments appear powerful at first but fail under scrutiny. The main argument is simply that if someone is in a life-threatening condition and needs one of our bodily organs to survive, we have no obligation to provide that bodily organ (for example, a kidney transplant or blood transfusion). As such they don’t believe a pregnant woman bears any responsibility to keep the embryo/fetus alive. But as we can see, the pregnant woman actually bears a special responsibility to the preborn human she carries within her. If you knowingly engage in an act that creates a naturally needy child, then you bear a responsibility to care for that naturally needy child.
Suppose you come across a button on the wall that says “BABY MAKING MACHINE.” That button will give you a pleasurable experience but has a 1/100 chance of producing a baby that comes out a chute below. You walk up to it and push the button, receiving the pleasurable experience, but a baby comes out. You can’t just walk away and leave the child to die. You are morally obligated to care for that child because you knowingly engaged in an act you knew had a chance of producing a child (that is, pushing the button).
Bodily rights arguments are very powerful but pregnancy is a very unique situation. In the case of pregnancy, a woman’s general right to bodily autonomy does not trump the preborn’s right to life.
End
This plus everything else he says.
Always be careful when you hear bullshit thought experiments line this. There are always important distinctions that might not seem obvious at first
The difference is that in the case of pregnancy it's the mother who "hooked" herself up to the fetus
How dare you think you can take away my right to do what I want with my body.
Those cells are mine until they are pushed out of my vagina
fucking straw man fuck off aussie come back in a week or so
test
Wrong, in abortion, you voluntarily stop a viable life. In the thought experiment, you let someone die. Those are not equivalent situations.
Anyway, unhooking you from the violinist is still immoral, even if you didn't choose it, I don't get how anybody can think it different.
Abortion is immoral.
Following that analogy, I could argue that I was violated and forced to bear the life of another, innocent though they may be, by a group of thugs. I claim that I was raped and such an act violates my basic rights as a human being. A person volunteering, agreeing or otherwise codifying a contract to bear the life of another, who then wants to end that life because it is inconvenient, would be morally wrong and have violated their social contract.
Innocent or not, standing agreements must be fulfilled between the individuals involved (the baby and husband in the former, yourself and the violinist (and supposedly their thuggish patrons) in the latter). The rights of the woman do not trump her agreement to wave the rights to her body for nine months to carry a parasitic creature to term by engaging in voluntary sexual conduct with a male. The rights of the individual with the magic coma curing body juice are infringed because s/he did not agree beforehand, violated by the brutish thespians.
Ignorance is not a factor in this either. Most women know when they procreate they have a chance of becoming pregnant and therefore becoming responsible for the life of the fetus. I may not know I have magic blood to keep the violinist alive, but that does not justify my abduction nor does it wave my rights (or responsibilities should I volunteer) in the event I must make a choice.
Only liberals can be this retarded
OK, so convince me why it is better for society to allow unwanted children to be brought into the world and treated poorly
You may think you've won the moral argument, but do you have a practical argument?
In the case of rape, because I know somebody will eventually bring it up:
Christopher Kaczor mentions, sometimes (as in the case of a woman who becomes pregnant from rape), there is no morally permissible option. There is only the choice between the morally wrong option or the morally heroic option. Faced with the choice of torturing your mother to death or facing the firing squad, one is morally wrong (torturing your mother) and one is morally heroic (facing the firing squad instead). In the same sense, since abortion is morally wrong (as I have argued previously), then to abort a child in the case of rape is morally wrong (that is, impermissible) and carrying the child to term would be a morally heroic action, if not simply the morally permissible action.
So what about a woman’s right to bodily autonomy? Don’t women have a right to bodily autonomy, even if abortion is usually morally impermissible? Perhaps whether or not the woman consented to sex is the relevant factor. Some pro-life people argue that if a woman consents to sex she waives her right to bodily autonomy so that she now has to raise the child she was partially responsible for conceiving.
1/2
Remember that no one has complete right to bodily autonomy. I may not strike someone without proper justification. I have control over my body, as long as it does not harm or kill another human. The same is true in pregnancy. A woman may exercise her right to bodily autonomy, as long as she does not harm or kill another human (i.e. the unborn child). Even if she does not consent to sex, this does not change the fact that she can’t do absolutely anything she wants with her body, especially harming or killing another human. If I’m in a crowded room that suddenly catches on fire, I may not shoot other people to increase my chances of making it out alive.
To reiterate, even if abortions in the case of rape were justified, they would only justify abortions in the case of rape. Not to mention, appealing to a tragic situation doesn’t suddenly make something that is immoral moral. It’s called an appeal to pity, which is a logical fallacy. But as we can see, there’s just no way to justify abortion if the unborn are valuable human beings.
2/2
Intellectual property of the cells are at least half shared with the donating male. Even if you're stuck with having to pay maintenance fees for the collaborative property I would argue the dopamine and various hormonal adjustments (including permanently enlarged breasts) balance those obligations out.
All unwanted children donated towards the state as a federal workforce of loyal Ubermench.
>why it is better for society to allow unwanted children to be brought into the world and treated poorly
Because without that, there'd be no daughters to grow up and breed future generations
There are plenty of adult born people that are unwanted, this fact does not justify their murder or give you the right to kill them. If we can't kill adult people for this reason then it can't be used it to kill the young.
So abortion is moraly acceptable in the case of a rape.... yeah ok that doesnt justify abortion in general fuckhead
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
Pro aborts are dickheads.
>so what if it is, still morally wrong for me to unconnect myself? It would suck but I would stay connected because itnis the right thing to do.
>Abortion is not really the equivalent of disconnecting the girl abortion is the equivalent of caving in her.
>why would you bother embellishing this story by adding they are a violinist. Should have been a filthy trucker cunt to emphasize the inconvenience.
Is it not morally wrong to hook me up in the first place?
The violinist and I are both a victim of the music lovers' aggression. I have the choice to sever the ties, and the violinist will die. Call it selfish, but it gives me the chance to put the music lovers to justice.
They are acting in the most selfish way possible, enslaving me so their favourite artist could regain consciousness.
My freedom will not be relinquished. They'll have to kill me first.
I noticed your crowded fire room analogy, and would like to point out that it is not legally impermissible to shoot others to increase your chances to escape, it is only morally incorrect. Of course, this all resides on the remains of the fire and your conviction, but is irrelevant. Morality =/= Legality. What is right is not always legal and what is legal is not always right. The same can be said that not all that is wrong is illegal and not all that is illegal is wrong. Just wanted to point that out.
Better argument: niggers
Abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest, danger of death to the mother, or a completely fucked baby.
And niggers, of course.
This might be the stupidest shit posted on Sup Forums today and that's saying something.
This
Toothpaste get it right
>2017
>still being pro-life.
Warm up the ovens, you blue-pilled dweeb cuck.
>convince me why society should allow unhappy people to suffer
your argument can be boiled down to the most moral action being exterminating humanity.
and this guy rekt your "striking and effective" thought experiment
Seriously.. imagine if we encouraged abortion. Shit skins would quickly follow the trend and white people would continue breeding, since whites actually plan for kids
When you have sex you waive any rights you had to your body since it is understood that sex creates babies and that birth control can fail. Only in cases where the fetus could cause grevious bodily harm are you allowed to kill it in self-defense. So, in other words...
Not an argument.
Pretty good, thanks for taking the time to do this
Is this all of it? If it is then this is all trash. He missed (perhaps purposefully since he doesn't know how to refute) key points of her argument like when she explains why rape isn't the only case where abortion should be permitted. Try again cuck.
>I noticed your crowded fire room analogy, and would like to point out that it is not legally impermissible to shoot others to increase your chances to escape
>not legally impermissible
>permissible to shoot others to increase chances of escape
>consensual sex
>breaking in a forcing you to... etc
Yep sounds exactly the same to me
>the 405
Why do Californians do this? It's fucking I-405.
all this moral talk comes crumbling down once reality hits you. If a nigger rapes and impregs a daughter, you abort the fetus, hang the rapist and his family and all niggers in the vicinity. We have become pathetic cucks by morality these past centuries its ridiculous.
>the violinist argument
This is a shit argument for a dozen reasons, but the most obvious is that there is literally no scenario in which such a thing could happen. There will never be only one person that can save the violinists life, that's just not how medicine or biology works.
In contrast, that is exactly how pregnancy works.
There's also the difference between action and inaction. Humans are not guilty for not doing something. Not hooking yourself is morally inferior to doing so, but it isn't immoral or murder to simply do nothing. In contrast, simply doing nothing results in the baby being born barring medical complications. You must act to cause an abortion.
Also pregnancy isn't nearly as debilitarting as being hooked up to a veggy for 9 months.
It's a terrible thought experiment at every level because it doesn't propose anything similar to abortion.
Genomic companies have intellectual rights over human genes that don't 'belong' to them, but belong to another person.
In the same way, a pregnant woman has the rights to the foetal cells
Not reality
Law professors John R. Lott, Jr. of Yale Law School and John E. Whitley of the University of Adelaide found that legalizing abortion increased murder rates by up to seven percent. They concluded that legalizing abortion is a contributing factor to the great increase in out-of-wedlock births and single parent families, which in turn contribute to increased crime rates. Since 1970, the percentage of single-parent households in the United States has nearly tripled, from 11 percent to 32 percent, and the percentage of out-of-wedlock births has nearly quadrupled, from 11 percent to 43 percent of all children. Children born out-of-wedlock and raised by only one parent have a significantly higher incidence of crime. Children born out-of-wedlock and raised by only one parent have a significantly higher incidence of crime.
I know many of you support abortion because you believe it's removing blacks but this simply isn't true. The black birth has consistently been higher than whites. Eugenics is terribly ineffective
For the case of rape see:
I wonder who could be behind this argument...
>Born in New York City, on October 4, 1929, Judith (Jarvis) Thomson was the second child of Theodore Jarvis (Javitz), an accountant, and Helen (Vostrey) Jarvis, an English teacher. Her mother was of Catholic Czech extraction, and her father was descended from a line of Eastern European rabbis, including Rabbi Hayyim Eliezer Wachs of Kalish and Rabbi Jacob Emden. Raised in an observant family on the Lower East Side, Theodore Javitz changed his name to Jarvis in 1918. His relationship with his wife, which began at socialist summer camp, was a source of tension for both their families.
Oh, right.
The difference is that women choose to get pregnant, whether they chose explicitly or implicitly is irrelevant because this critical difference renders this analogy totally invalid.
In this false analogy, you are forced against your will to be hooked up to another person, you are also forced to be bed-ridden for the 9 month period.
Women choose to get pregnant when they choose to have sex. Pregnancy does not cause them to be bed-ridden, and is a slight inconvenience in this age.
Try again
>Being this retarded to self-justify baby murdering.
That's why it is a thought experiment. It is meant to help explore a subject that can't be explored or it is prohibitive to explore
Are you fucking kidding me?
The woman had the choice to spread her legs and be a slut. She has to deal with the consquences, when she fucks while beeing drunk and is stupid to fuck without a condom. She isnt mary that she gets pregnant outta nowhere
>b-but muh rape victim
We want to punish the fuck out of rapist, like castration or death penalty, stopping rapefugees to flood the country, etc.
So they dont fucking dare to touch a woman wich isnt theirs but then again there comes a fucker like you and complains that this isnt morally acceptable, >muh freedom,
So you can all go to hell you stupid fucks, by god...
>complain about rapists
>not wanting to do something about them
Nu-males at their finest
You have to design so that it doesn't have glaring problems though.
If it doesn't at all represent something similar to abortion, it's not a good thought experiment.
Except that in this case it was a contractual agreement between the two. The only way intellectual property can be transferred from one member to the other is through an agreement beforehand (like a sperm doner or a surrogate womb providing both housing and the ovum)
>Not reality
Elaborate.
>Jews behind the argument
Well that settles it boys. Do you think it's some kind of sad joke that everything comes back to the Jews manipulating shit and playing the victim card when they're caught?
>women have no say in getting pregnant
>one day someone just knocks them up while they are sleeping
Does she really believe that. Or is she that stupid.
Virgin detected. All forms of contraceptive fail (even abstinence because of rape!).
Conflating abortion with slut is egregious.
PIV is always rape shitlord.
The answer is yes.
I didn't sign a contract with Myriad Genetics. I was 4 years old when they claim ownership over part of me and every other woman.
In what way would legalizing abortion contribute to single parent homes and out-of-wedlock births? If anything, you'd expect the opposite to be true.
I'll refer you to the paper itself
digitalcommons.law.yale.edu
Fucking weak argument. Must use fantasy to try to make a point.
How about this. The Creator of Heaven and Earth creates you in his image. So much so he also gives you his power to create life.
You create life then decide for selfish reasons you want to kill this life. You go to a Ghoul of a doctor and he punches a hole in the head of a baby and scrambles the babies brain.
Do you think God is happy with your murdering ass? No. The woman and sometimes man is cursed with this "decision" for life. Always wondering what the baby would have been.. Cure cancer, new space propulsion. You'll never know because the doctor cut the baby in pieces to sell all the organs.
Fucking stop murdering babies, dumbasses.!
God creates me and then lets me die.
I create a foetus and I let it die.
Complete equivalence.
>let it die
No, you are intentionally killing it. If you "let it die" it would be born instead. That's the difference.
genetic uniqueness of every child is a problem, among others, to justify murdering it for the sake of comfort or so-called personal freedom of the pussy-at-hand
should be a crime imo, not just heavily regulated as it stands nowadays
That's why we invented slavery.
>be happy nigger
>go sleep
>wake up on plantation
>enslaved because slave owner decided the plantation can't survive without you
>you can't leave but if you do it is destroyed
>is it morally wrong to be a slave now?
So does this mean we have free reign to go postal on welfare drains?
I mean they're "hooked" to us. Sounds like it's morally right to "unhook" them.
Shit I'm okay with abortion but fuck that stupid analogy.
>Abortion is legal.
>"I can fuck without consequences!"
>Fucks.
>Gets pregnant.
>Second thoughts.
In a society where abortion is a legal option, promiscuity is less risky from a pregnancy standpoint. Not everyone who decides they can get an abortion can follow through when it becomes a real and not hypothetical issue.
Smoking would be a lot more prevalent if there was a pill or relatively safe medical procedure to take care of the disease aspects of the habit.
Poisoning it =/= letting it die. It's kinda like the difference between murder and negligence for medical professionals.
Is everyone in this thread retarded? Having a child is a mutual choice, once that you made. It's not the same as someone bursting into your room and impregnating you..
>choosing to get pregnant is the same thing as being forced to nurture another person's life
Anybody too stupid to use birth control should be shot.
No abortion means more niggers. Do you support abortion?
"To Akerlof, et. al., the legalization of abortion reduced women’s ability to withhold premarital sexual favors from men. Women who are willing to obtain an abortion are more likely to engage in premarital sexual activity without a promise of marriage should pregnancy occur. However, other women who are unwilling to obtain an abortion face competition from women who are willing to obtain an abortion as men “seek satisfaction elsewhere” (pp. 296-7). Further, as premarital sex and out-of-wedlock births became more common, the stigma declined and social pressure for couples to marry also declined, hence reducing investment in the child."
From page 5 of the paper cited by
This is really the major thorn in the side of the argument in the west now, considering we've allowed incompetent shitskins into our countries who will produce many more incompetent shitskins than we will decent white people.
But even without shitskins, consider the following;
There would still be rape babies, although on a much smaller scale.
There would still be horrible birth defects that make the child's life full of pain and misery.
There is still the possibility of cases where the mother would die from the child.
Is it so impossible to separate those cases from the ones where women simply want to do away with their child? It's sickening to me to think of women stopping the fulfillment of human life so that they can continue living a life of fun and fucking. Your life is not yours after you conceive. Their has to be a legal way to put it that you can't get an abortion just because you don't want a baby right now.
No. Rape and health (and eugenics) are all valid reasons for abortion. Random irresponsibility is not.
This is retarded.
When you're a chick and you get knocked up, unless you were raped it's entirely your fault. There are literally more than a dozen effective means of birth control available to women.
Your analogy falls apart because you are being forcibly used as the violinist's means of life and had absolutely zero say in the matter. A woman who gets pregnant almost always had a say in it.
Stop making my side look retarded.
You don't need any of these dumb thought experiments to see that free and legal abortion is not only morally right, but an absolute necessity! You only have to look at the statistics! Daily reminder that there is not a single logical argument against abortion, and that anti-abortion equals anti-white.
This is the most retarded thing I've read in a while, good job user.
No seriously look at the numbers. Do you seriously think Trump or any other conservative for that matter would have even a tiny chance of becoming president if abortion never became legal? You're looking at millions of liberal votes that never got born.
Except birth control fails. I did not consent to the contraception failing
Yeah no
You always have the option to give birth to a kid and dump it in the orphanage if you don't want it instead of fucking killing it
Abortion is morally wrong and will always be when there's much better options
Abortionists oughta be hanged
The famous violinist lived his live and I don't care. Hooks out.
If she is a hot chick, I'd keep her plugged in and fuck her for 9 months and give her a real baby, which she will not be allowed to abort.
Now that's a moral conundrum.
That's totally valid, and I implore all blacks and browns to get abortions, but this only makes more reason to have white nations.
For those that say it is the woman's fault:
People-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don’t want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective; and a seed drifts in and takes root.
Are you at fault for allowing pollen into your house, despite legitimate attempts to prevent it?
Abortion should still be available to all so that degenerate whites don't have too many kids. White trash isn't that much better than niggers to be honest. I don't get the retards here that think it's good that degenerates are forced to have kids, simply because they want to punish women for having sex. Guess what retards, we're the ones that will get punished when the degenerate kids hit their teens.
But in the real world nobody just hands off a fetus that needs nourishment for 9 months against the mothers will. The mother understand what could happen by being promiscuous, if married the argument still applies. No one forced that baby (aka the dying violinist) onto the mother, she accepted it on her own free will. I am pro choice for the number of niggers it takes out a year but this argument is sloppy and to see so mamy dumbfounded by it kind of shocks me.
This situation only addresses the rape exception to abortion.
Any non rape analogies would involve the person causing the comatose state somehow (perhaps with a partner) with intent. Actually in general the agent here would have to cause the comatose state, either in a consensual or non consensual way (the latter being the rape case).
In any case, let's rephrase the analogy.
You caused the comatose state with intent (consensual sex in abortion analogy) therefore the person you are hooked up to is not a random person, and there must be some kind of justice for you causing this state.
>Semen floats through the air into the vaginas of women and impregnates them without their consent
Wew lad.
>sven
is it morally wrong to abort a child who will live in poverty?
>promiscuous
Why do so many keep assuming that?!
Presumptions and assumptions in this thread are off the charts!
Jesus Christ. I know you're Australian, but take a break from the shitposting.
Is it morally wrong to gun down those in poverty?
The OP and example you linked were both penned by an American.
I know you're used to Breitbart and Buzzfeed. Soon you will come to discover that this is philosophy
This thought experiment falls apart when you realise this ONLY applies to rape pregnancies, which make up
I dont think you are wrong op, but the one thing different between this situation and the violinist is that the violinist is not intentionally destroyed and refused any further medical treatment when he is unhooked.
I think if hospitals delivered the fetus and provided it the highest possible standard of care until it could be discharged or died you could then make a moral argument FOR abortion.
Because normal women don't find it hard to not be impregnated. Why do you keep assuming that they're ultra-sluts?
I didn't link anything. Come on man, this board even had IDs.
I should also add that there are still more problems with this analogy. For example, with respect to children, we have anti child abuse laws and anti child neglect laws. Naturally these laws are enacted with the State's interest in mind, not the individual. Nonetheless, the OP's analogy serves to also justify child neglect as a completely ethical thing to do (we are almost at Murray Rothbard levels of retardation). Which it obviously is not.
Tbqh, what moral person would not actually help that man? I know it's a thought experiment, but you aren't hospital bound when pregnant, so I'd imagine being hooked up to the violinist is more like a series of transfusions. You'd be inconvenienced, but still able to perform most daily functions. Would you really say it's moral to not help? I can understand saying that people should have to option to not help; but, that doesn't make it moral.
Normal women, do, in fact, get pregnant and get abortions.
I have been to the abortion clinic with friends. They used contraception.
Notice how 95+% =/= 100%?