|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 23, 2019 0:47:49 GMT
Your analogy is another version of the "violinist" analogy from 1971's "A Defense Of Abortion" by Judith Thomson: You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4] Thomson says that you can now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: this is due to limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."[5] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
Even though I'm pro-choice, I don't find this analogy convincing. The critical difference is that the violinist is an intruder from without, trespassing, while a fetus is in its natural place, a woman's body, where it began its life. (A topic worthy of its own thread)
I’ve tried to explain that one to him before. You did? I didn't notice, but then again, I hadn't looked over your comments all that carefully. Now that you say this, I went back and looked again. I still don't see anything that seems even close to what I said. (Maybe you could quote for me what you are referring to.)
|
|