Restating My Thesis:
Premise 1: All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.
Premise 2: Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.
This is a valid argument.
Which means, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true. For more on validity and arguments go here. For a further treatment of my thesis go here.
Objections to my thesis tend to fall into one of the following categories:
- The objection on the being of the fetus.
- Objections from choice, privacy, and rights.
- Objections from the lesser evil.
- Objections concerning endangering the mother's life or women's health.
- The objection base on the Violinist Argument.
- The objection that I should not shove my morality down someone else's throat. a.k.a. "You cannot legislate morality."
In this post I address the fifth group of objections: The Violinist Argument.
The violinist argument
In this objection I present what is sometimes called “the violinist
argument.” This argument begins by
accepting that the fetus is a living, human being and that its right to life
certainly outweighs the woman’s rights concerning her choice and decisions
about her body, so, then, an abortion may not be performed. However, as Judith Jarvis Thompson goes on to
say,
It sounds plausible. But now let me
ask you to imagine this. 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. The director
of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music
Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But
still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you
would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he
will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Is it morally incumbent on you to
accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a
great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine
months, but nine years? Or longer still?
What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree,
but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the
rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and
violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and
to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what
happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I
imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something
really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.[1]
This
argument is similar to saying that if a woman’s freedom or liberty is being
attacked in any way – rape, kidnapping, etc. – then she has the legal authority
to repel the attacker. Whether the
attacker is outside of her body or inside is inconsequential, the woman has the
right to maintain her liberty and freedom.
If a fetus is threatening a woman’s freedom, she has the right to use
lethal force and abort the fetus.
Response to the violinist argument
The
violinist argument does sound rather convincing at first, but once a person
gets past the appeal to pity the argument sounds off key. Thompson presents a reasonable argument to
something other than abortion. Her
analogy is clever, but it is a faulty analogy when compared to pregnancy and
abortion. Her analogy is faulty in
several respects.
Pregnancy is Not a Crime:
First,
kidnapping is a crime, pregnancy is not.
Granted, some places declare families may have only a
certain number of children; but no one that I am aware is sent to prison because of a
pregnancy. Abortions are performed in
China in these cases, but to my knowledge no one is arrested.[2] Even in places such as China, since parents
are not arrested for the first pregnancy it goes to show that it is not a
crime. However, first time kidnappers
are not left off the hook. Kidnapping is
repulsive in every culture. In nearly
every culture a pregnancy is often considered a joyous occasion. In every culture there are women who would
love to have a baby; yet I do not think many wish to be kidnapped. Equating pregnancy to kidnapping is
unreasonable. Thompson’s analogy fails.
Pregnancy is Not an Unnatural Surgery:
The
violinist argument also fails to be valid by equating surgery with
maternity. The surgical attachment of a
person to the outside of another person is an abnormal and unnatural
process. The process of pregnancy is
natural and has been happening long before surgery or physicians walked the
earth. Equating surgery to pregnancy is
unreasonable. Thompson’s analogy fails
again.
Pregnancy does Not Render a Woman Helpless:
In the
violinist argument the woman remains helpless for nine months or more. Pregnant women still are capable of many jobs
and activities. It is true that it is
often the case that women are limited to what they can and cannot (or should
not) do while they are pregnant, but it is ludicrous to say that this somehow
compares to being bedridden with a fully grown man sewn to your back. Equating these situations is
unreasonable. Thompson’s analogy fails a
third time.
Pregnancy is Not an Unnatural Bond with a Stranger:
The
mother/child relationship is a special bond known throughout the world and
history. Even though there are cases
where this relationship is soured with horrific results, the rest of the world
was shocked and did not respond by simply saying, “Oh, well, those things
happen.” Every culture expects mothers
and their children to possess a bond that cannot be accurately described in
casual terms. Thompson, however,
attempts to reason that the mother’s feelings towards her child are of the same
nature as her feelings to a complete stranger.
To equate the stranger/stranger relationship with that of a mother &
child is unreasonable. Thompson’s
analogy fails a fourth time.
Pregnancy is Not Science Fiction:
Another
flaw with Thompson’s argument is that she does nothing more than to appeal to a
fictitious, extremely far-fetched scenario.
Thompson tries to persuade her readers that since they would justify the
woman’s choice to withhold life support in this improbable scenario that we
should therefore also see justification in women’s choices that lead to over a
million abortions each year. To equate
the rare with the rampant is unreasonable.
Thompson’s analogy fails again.
Abortion is Not Merely Withholding Life Support:
Author,
speaker, and radio personality, Greg Koukl also responds to Thompson’s
violinist argument. He comments on the
flaws that I too noticed: artificial attachment vs. natural process; equating
the mother/child relationship to that of a host/predator type of engagement or
to the stranger/stranger relationship.
However, he also points to a most serious flaw in the violinist argument. Koukl says it this way:
“In the violinist illustration, the woman might be justified withholding life-giving treatment from the musician under these circumstances. Abortion, though, is not merely withholding treatment. It is actively taking another human being’s life trough poisoning or dismemberment. A more accurate parallel with abortion would be to crush the violinist or cut him into pieces before unplugging him.”[3]
Koukl found the crucial flaw in Thompson’s
argument. Abortion is not simply
withholding life-support from an organism that is dying by natural means. Abortion is unnaturally and intentionally
ending a life that is following nature’s course of life. Abortion is not withholding mercy; abortion
is taking an innocent life. Equating
abortion to the withholding of life-support from dying individuals is
unreasonable.
Thompson’s analogy fails, period.
End Note:
There is help for those who have participated in an abortion. Rachel's Vineyard is a wonderful resource and place for healing.
[1] Thompson, Judith Jarvis, “A Defense of Abortion,” Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1971):
[2] I do not
think abortion is justified even in the case as China’s population problems.
[3] Greg
Koukl, “Unstringing the Violinist,” [article online], available from http://str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/unstrign.htm;
Internet; accessed 8 February 2003. No longer at this site address. Cannot find update.
