Please Freepmail me if you want to be added, readded, or removed
Please Freepmail me if you want to be added, readded, or removed
Simply put the Judith Jarvis Thompson argument pretends to make an analogy between her hypothetical case and abortion, but their are too many points where the cases are not analogous and her argument fails on its own weakness - it’s an apples and oranges comparison where the cases are not similar at all.
I would argue that the “rape” exception in this case means that the violinist pays the price for his own culpability in the abuse of his “living kidney” partner.
That he benefits — either actively or passively — from the criminality of others compels no obligation on the woman.
She has an opportunity to do a humanitarian thing; she has no moral duty to do so.
I would see that same conditions applying to a woman who was raped. She is under no obligation to carry the child to term. But she has an incredible opportunity to demonstrate the purest form of Christian love by doing so.
God always gives us choices.
Let the violinist live!
Being ‘plugged into’ another adult for 9 months is vastly different than being pregnant. For the first few months, you may not even know you are pregnant, so they are nothing alike. Even towards the end, for almost all women, you can do most of what you could do before you were even pregnant. I enjoyed being pregnant. This analogy doesn’t work at all.
But, that is exactly what they want to deny. They want "consensual acts of sex" to be free, easy, and as universal as the sunrise — "responsibility" is kryptonite to them.
In their preferred world, people DO just "wake up pregnant". That is why they want abortion on demand and "morning-after" abortifacient drugs.
And, of course, for all their neighbors (us) to applaud, celebrate, and (of course) pay for it.