The violinist argument for abortion

[AlNg]

Please read the following article:

Refuting the “Violinist Argument” for Abortion

One common pro-choice slogan is “My body, my choice,” but even pro-choice philosophers agree this is a bad argument for legal abortion. According to Judith Jarv...

www.catholic.com

Please notice that according to the article:

“ in the case of a stranger who will die unless I donate blood or bone marrow, I am not obligated to help him, because I was not involved in how he became ill. “

Now notice the argument:

“But why is the fetus connected to a woman’s body in pregnancy? Ninety-nine percent of the time, it is because the woman willingly engaged in sexual intercourse, which is known to create dependent people …If I freely engaged in an activity that I knew had the possibility of creating a helpless human life, I am responsible for creating that life and I owe her whatever assistance she needs to survive. “

Let us consider though the One percent of the time when the woman is forcibly raped against her will.

Would the violinist argument kick in because no one should be forced to be connected to a violinist for 9 months in order to save the life of the violinist? Where would the violinist argument break down in the case of brutal forcible rape? In particular there are examples of very young girls who have been forcibly raped.

 

[Gorgias]

Would the violinist argument kick in because no one should be forced to be connected to a violinist for 9 months in order to save the life of the violinist?

I think that you’d abandon the argument of “responsibility”, but could be asked whether “charity toward another’s human life” is unreasonable to be asked of you.

 

[Elf01]

Would the violinist argument kick in because no one should be forced to be connected to a violinist for 9 months in order to save the life of the violinist? Where would the violinist argument break down in the case of brutal forcible rape? In particular there are examples of very young girls who have been forcibly raped.

To me it’s ordinary vs extraordinary care. The fetus receives ordinary care from his/her mother, the violinist receives extraordinary care.

 

[Inquiry]

Okay, lets modify the violinist argument slightly. Let’s say that it is a case of conjoined twins, we’ll call them Left and Right. Let’s say they are both sharing Left’s heart (Right’s heart is malformed) and Left wants to be separated. If they are separated now Right will die but if they wait for a donor heart Right can live. Does Left have to wait?

The change here is that the situation was no longer created by a deliberate act of man. The violinist argument is pulling a trick (one of many) by replacing a lot more that it seems. We notice that it replaces an act of sex with an act of kidnapping, but it is easy to miss that it switches fertilization and implantation with an act of Mad Science. They are not equivalent. One is a clearly immoral act that involves invasive surgery, the other isn’t even a deliberate action.

Remove the mad science from the analogy. Does Left have to wait?

 

[Lea101]

YouTube Stephanie Gray and Matt Fradd. She refutes this really well imo.

Does Left have to wait?

Interesting scenario.

Where this differs would be the fact that a woman’s uterus is made to specifically reproduce, so we have that factor at play (I.e. It can be argued that the fetus has the right to occupy this space).

With the conjoined twins this gets tricky. I would say it’s not murder because the intent is to separate (with death being an effect). Not sure how well though out this is though. This reminds me of how the Church accepts procedures that would save the mother but kill the fetus as long as it’s not a direct abortion. I guess it depends on Left’s reasoning.

 

[QContinuum]

Let’s say they are both sharing Left’s heart

This is the weakness in this argument. The heart has never clearly existed as the property of only one or the other party.

In the case of the mother and fetus, the mother’s uterus was always and only hers. Even while pregnant, the fetus inhabits the uterus, but it basically is plugged into the “outlet” of the mother’s uterus through the placenta and the umbilical cord. Through this interface, the fetus draws all of its nutrients from the mother’s own reserves. Oxygen, nutrients, water, etc. The fetus also requires the mother’s uterus to filter and eliminate all waste products. Effectively, then, the fetus does not only use the mother’s uterus - it also is using her lungs, her blood, the stores in her bones, and her gastrointestinal tract.

Even if you argue that the the uterus is the natural habit for the fetus, and therefore has a natural right to inhabit it, the logical pro-choice response would be: “Alright. I’ll give you that, but let’s remove the uterus from the mother with the fetus inside. The fetus is permitted to inhabit the uterus, but by why right do you require the mother to keep or house the uterus? Take it out, and be on your way.”

 

[Wesrock]

AlNg:

Would the violinist argument kick in because no one should be forced to be connected to a violinist for 9 months in order to save the life of the violinist? Where would the violinist argument break down in the case of brutal forcible rape? In particular there are examples of very young girls who have been forcibly raped.

To me it’s ordinary vs extraordinary care. The fetus receives ordinary care from his/her mother, the violinist receives extraordinary care.

This is the proper argument. The notion of voluntary relations adds additional reasons, but it’s not the base reason. The care the fetus receives from its mother is ordinary care and in accordance with the nature of both the fetus and the mother. Not to even mention parental obligations.

 

[Gorgias]

I would say it’s not murder because the intent is to separate (with death being an effect). Not sure how well though out this is though. This reminds me of how the Church accepts procedures that would save the mother but kill the fetus as long as it’s not a direct abortion.

Right: “separate but death as side effect” sounds like an attempt to make this a ‘double effect’ situation. It’s not. Since they share a heart, the analysis would seem to be “take Right’s heart away from him, leading to his death.” That wouldn’t be morally licit.

 

[Inquiry]

Inquiry:

Let’s say they are both sharing Left’s heart

This is the weakness in this argument. The heart has never clearly existed as the property of only one or the other party.

Sure it does. I realize I haven’t said the exact nature of the conjoinment since getting lost down that rabbit hole would only be a distraction, but I clearly said Right has a heart it just doesn’t work. The working Heart is Left’s. When they are separated it is going with Left. The only way it would go with Right is to transplant it into his thoracic cavity.

The heart is Left’s. Right is just using it until he can survive on his own. Does Left have to wait until Right can do that?

Lea101:

I would say it’s not murder because the intent is to separate (with death being an effect). Not sure how well though out this is though. This reminds me of how the Church accepts procedures that would save the mother but kill the fetus as long as it’s not a direct abortion.

Right: “separate but death as side effect” sounds like an attempt to make this a ‘double effect’ situation. It’s not. Since they share a heart, the analysis would seem to be “take Right’s heart away from him, leading to his death.” That wouldn’t be morally licit.

I would say ‘take away Right’s ability to move blood around his body’ as Right get’s to keep his own heart but it doesn’t work. I know it seems like a quibble but the point of this scenario was to set up an Mad Science free scenario where someone was plugged into the circulatory system of another.

 

[BartholomewB]

As Trent Horn observes in his paraphrase of the “violinist argument,”

• It turns out the Society of Music Lovers has kidnapped you and has connected you to this violinist in order to filter the rare blood type you both share.

The donor, in this example, is the victim of a crime. She or he was kidnapped. That’s where the analogy breaks down. The “violinist argument” might, just possibly, hold up as a true analogy in the case of a rape victim, but not otherwise. If the pregnancy is the outcome of consensual sex, whether or not the father and mother are husband and wife, it’s a false analogy that leads nowhere.

 

[TheIttyBitty]

Rape isn’t a good enough reason to not go the adoption route instead of abortion.

The baby is still innocent, regardless of the circumstances.

God decides if life will result or not. God is always right, and God cannot do evil. It is not my place to kill a baby that God brought into my life, through good or through bad. Through planning or through accident.

Maybe the baby offers healing to the victim. Maybe things get worse before they get better. Maybe things are better in the end that way than the other way(abortion). Maybe a miscarriage takes place from the stress, and the victim mourns despite, and realizes they are glad they didn’t have an abortion.

So many factors here, so so many.

But no matter what, that baby is innocent.

 

[AlNg]

The “violinist argument” might, just possibly, hold up as a true analogy in the case of a rape victim, but not otherwise

That was case in point for the question in the OP.

 

[ZemD]

Let us consider though the One percent of the time when the woman is forcibly raped against her will.

Would the violinist argument kick in because no one should be forced to be connected to a violinist for 9 months in order to save the life of the violinist? Where would the violinist argument break down in the case of brutal forcible rape? In particular there are examples of very young girls who have been forcibly raped.

I would argue that the violinist argument would still not be valid in the case of rape because of the relationship of mother and child.

It is irrelevant how the child was conceived, the child is still created from the mother’s DNA, a direct descendant. That relationship requires a different level of obligation than one would have to a random musician who is attached to him or even a sibling. The relationship of mother and child would require a mother to allow her child to use her womb and other body systems until which time he can be born and survive on his own. Then after that bare minimum 9 months of care is over, the mother can give the baby up for adoption if she does not wish to provide any further care.

 

[Rau]

The “violinist argument” might, just possibly, hold up as a true analogy in the case of a rape victim, but not otherwise. If the pregnancy is the outcome of consensual sex, whether or not the father and mother are husband and wife, it’s a false analogy that leads nowhere.

There are a number of considerations that stand in the way of ending a pregnancy - including one arising from rape. First that ending a pregnancy involves acts which inherently - by their nature - kill the child. That’s not the nature of a person separating himself from medical equipment to which he was attached by the friends of the violinist. Second is the obligation to provide ordinary care as previously identified. A woman with child - whether this seems fair or not - has an obligation to provide the ordinary care that her unborn offspring requires. And again, what is asked of the man connected through medical equipment to the dying violinist is not delivering ordinary care.

 

[Inquiry]

Not even then. Note that two things are replaced in the violinist scenario: the kidnapping replaces the assault and the surgery replaces implantation. The nonconsented surgery is a violation. The kidnapping is a violation. Assault is a violation.

Implantation is not a violation.

The violinist argument is trying to get trick people into accepting that implantation itself can be an evil.

 

[Aulef]

The only reasonable argument against abortion is the one the Holy Church promotes, which is “thall shall not kill an innocent person (murder)”. It is simple, objective and universal.

 

[AlNg]

Implantation is not a violation.

I think that rape is a violation.

 

[vz71]

I think that rape is a violation.

But the baby didn’t do it.
The rapist did.

Would you have an innocent child put to death for the actions of someone else?

 

[AlNg]

But the baby didn’t do it.
The rapist did.

This is true.

 

[BornInMarch]

At the heart is the question of whether bodily autonomy or human life is of a higher value. The answer to this question dictates the answer to others like the one the article postulates.

I’ll say that preserving human life comes first. Let me use a historical example; in the turn of the century there was a woman named Mary Mallon who was a carrier of typhoid fever. She wanted to keep working and being in public, regardless of the fact that this was killing others. So the authorities arrested and quarantined her against her will.

I would say that the authorities did the right thing, because preserving human life was more important than protecting Mallon’s autonomy.