I agree with much of what that first link to an article suggests, but I think he only indirectly hits at the arguments main flaws. Sorry if my rant is along the same reasoning the same as the second link Whowantsumadebo, I couldn’t load it up, but I thought this post might be of at least a slight bit of interest (and fun 
).
Personally (like the first link’s author), its the best pro-abortion argument I have ever heard (one that almost appeals to reason and then ethics), but just think of these few things.
The problem with the argument is the difference between a perfect and imperfect obligation. That is the argument wants you to look at a perfect obligation as an imperfect one and thus deceive you. By perfect obligation I mean something one is morally obligated to do in any given situation. Such as one should never murder, etc. By imperfect I mean something that is indirectly related or a positive obligation. For example, I should help out my fellow man in need, the beggar at my door, etc, but it ought not be enforced by law. The argument wants you to think that what is at stake here is an imperfect obligation, that you ought to aid the violinist in need, but don’t necessarily have too (that is, it is supposed to sound gracious, like giving alms). However, this is not at what is at stake here, for you are in a condition in which you have already given the aid by some outside force. What is at stake is you taking it back what is already happened, and thus by taking it back you need to kill the violinist (violate a perfect obligation). (The first article linked seems to hit near this, but not directly enough to my liking) So let me draw this out in story. First lets set some things up:
She has
no obligation to add anything to the violinist, but she would be obviously wrong to murder him (
actively removing him, surgery etc.). Once he is connected, the removal (given it results in his death) is clearly immoral.
I. Counter-Example by Stories
1.) Consider an
indirect parallel crazy story. You live in the middle of no-where completely detached from civilization. One day a 1 year old is dropped off at your house. Now that kid could be ignored and thus will die, but the kid is going to make your life more difficult, but is ignoring the kid morally legitimate?
Now that was connected indirectly, as you would need to be actively making a choice to go beyond given circumstances to preserve the kids life, yet I am sure, even there, most people would say it would be immoral to toss the kid or let him die (though I might agree that no law need to be passed forcing a person to save them, but I would despise the one who would not nourish the kid). So what about a direct parallel? (these things are always absurd stories, but necessary
)
2.) Consider you are resting at an edge of a cliff with your arms hanging over the edge. Now lets say there is a small boy walking by and a man pushes him and he falls right next to you, but right before he falls he grabs hold of one of your arms, but you are heavy enough that it doesn’t pull you off the cliff too. Now the kid is light enough that **you aren’t in any danger **of falling. But it sure is painful and stressful to have that kid holding on to you, and now you have to wait until he at least climbs up using your arm as leverage. You could pull the kid up, but that would be even more painful (maybe no obligation there, though some may argue otherwise as with the first story), but thankfully for the kid he can climb up so long as you don’t choose to shake him off, but boy is the boy annoying! Would actively trying to shake the kid off, which will result in his death, be wrong? Who would deny it? Seems a clear enough counter-example to me (kid is not at fault, you are burdened with him, all you need to do is do
nothing and the kid will live,).
Just because you find yourself in a set of unfortunate circumstances doesn’t mean that you need to use murder (or any other intrinsically wrong means) to get yourself out of it. ** Allowing the violinist example as moral seems to open the door to absurdities like people murdering people who annoy them.** A tall person is born with this genetic disposition (tallness) but it might violently annoy some given man. So the burden is placed, but it is not the tall mans fault. Now does he (the horribly painfully annoyed man) have a right to remove his burden (the tall man from living)? Given we allow the violinist it seems so. Using the rhetoric of the violinist argument, he could heroically bear his burden of being annoyed (not denying that there is some heroism in doing so) but would we blame him for removing the tall man from reality? (Of course we would
)
The same thing seems to apply to the violinist. I think the reason people balk at it is that they confuse actively adding him with passively bearing him as a mother passively bears her child. A mother must take an active measure to kill the child, just as the ‘host’ must take an active measure to destroy the violinist. The violinist story does not parallel to the first story, but rather the second (First is indirect, second is direct. First is passively causing the kids death, second is actively. First is an imperfect obligation, second is perfect)
Like always, abortion appears to contradict reason and morality.
Hope that seals the deal
