- Joined
- Feb 12, 2017
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 11
Being open-minded and able to see that the issue of abortion is an incredibly complicated issue, depending upon the particular situation, in that it involves the potentially risky juxtaposition of two valuable lives in the process of pregnancy, I find myself taken aback often by the rhetoric spewing from both sides of the fence. However, I have to admit here that I see many of the erroneous or superficial arguments emanating from the pro-choice side.
One argument, that I won't even expend all that much time on, because it's patently ridiculous, from a developmental biology perspective, is that the unborn entity is not alive, is part of its mother's body, is not yet human, etc. It is obviously alive, and I think even most pro-choicers would agree to this. It is emphatically not part of its mother's body. For anyone inclined to think this way, I have three facts to point out: Did you know that, when it is first conceived, it is not even attached to the mother's body at all, and only attaches later during a process known as implantation? Did you know that you constantly have bacteria inside your body, as well, and sometimes worms, yet no self-respecting person, let alone a scientist, would ever claim that those bacteria or worms are part of your body because they're inside it? And did you know that embryos are sometimes conceived using in vitro fertilization, and reside in a test tube, outside any woman's body -- yet who would claim that, as long as it is inside the test tube, the embryo is part of the test tube? And as for the argument that it is not yet a human because it doesn't "look human" yet, I must ask you this: Are you not aware of the metamorphosis by which a caterpillar changes into a butterfly, a maggot morphs into a fly, a tadpole transmogrifies into a frog? Indeed, caterpillars and maggots resemble worms more than they do butterflies and flies, respectively, and tadpoles resemble fish more than they do frogs. So the fact that a human zygote resembles an amoeba more than its adult self is no more of an argument against it being the same individual human being as its adult self any more so than any of these other creatures' juvenile or larval forms being the younger versions of their adult selves.
Now I arrive at the main gist of this post, the famous/infamous Violinist Argument by Judith Jarvis Thomson. This argument articulates that a woman has the right to an abortion by analogy of a scenario in which a violinist who needs her organs to survive is plugged into her for nine months. According to this argument, she reserves the right to unplug the violinist from her if she does not wish him to survive off of her body, and that, even if doing so would be a morally repugnant choice, she still has the right to make that choice, as her right to bodily autonomy trumps her right to act as a life support system for the violinist.
While this is among the more convincing pro-choice arguments I have yet encountered, and reading it managed to convince me that there was actually some logic and reason within the pro-choice movement, rather than just merely denial of the science of embryology, I still detect a significant flaw within it. And this is the fact that unplugging the violinist merely removes the source of life support, while subsequently allowing the violinist to die. If the violinist were violently dismembered and torn apart, limb-from-limb, as in many abortions, then, this would be a valid analogy. But as long as abortions continue to be performed via utilization of violent means, then this argument cannot be a completely potent one.
Be honest with yourselves here, pro-choicers. If you really were in such a situation with a violinist, would you merely unplug him and leave him to die, or would you hire a doctor to dismember him and tear him apart, ripping off his limbs, crushing his skull, etcetera? If your answer is the former, then this is a major logical error with Thomson's Violinist Argument.
One argument, that I won't even expend all that much time on, because it's patently ridiculous, from a developmental biology perspective, is that the unborn entity is not alive, is part of its mother's body, is not yet human, etc. It is obviously alive, and I think even most pro-choicers would agree to this. It is emphatically not part of its mother's body. For anyone inclined to think this way, I have three facts to point out: Did you know that, when it is first conceived, it is not even attached to the mother's body at all, and only attaches later during a process known as implantation? Did you know that you constantly have bacteria inside your body, as well, and sometimes worms, yet no self-respecting person, let alone a scientist, would ever claim that those bacteria or worms are part of your body because they're inside it? And did you know that embryos are sometimes conceived using in vitro fertilization, and reside in a test tube, outside any woman's body -- yet who would claim that, as long as it is inside the test tube, the embryo is part of the test tube? And as for the argument that it is not yet a human because it doesn't "look human" yet, I must ask you this: Are you not aware of the metamorphosis by which a caterpillar changes into a butterfly, a maggot morphs into a fly, a tadpole transmogrifies into a frog? Indeed, caterpillars and maggots resemble worms more than they do butterflies and flies, respectively, and tadpoles resemble fish more than they do frogs. So the fact that a human zygote resembles an amoeba more than its adult self is no more of an argument against it being the same individual human being as its adult self any more so than any of these other creatures' juvenile or larval forms being the younger versions of their adult selves.
Now I arrive at the main gist of this post, the famous/infamous Violinist Argument by Judith Jarvis Thomson. This argument articulates that a woman has the right to an abortion by analogy of a scenario in which a violinist who needs her organs to survive is plugged into her for nine months. According to this argument, she reserves the right to unplug the violinist from her if she does not wish him to survive off of her body, and that, even if doing so would be a morally repugnant choice, she still has the right to make that choice, as her right to bodily autonomy trumps her right to act as a life support system for the violinist.
While this is among the more convincing pro-choice arguments I have yet encountered, and reading it managed to convince me that there was actually some logic and reason within the pro-choice movement, rather than just merely denial of the science of embryology, I still detect a significant flaw within it. And this is the fact that unplugging the violinist merely removes the source of life support, while subsequently allowing the violinist to die. If the violinist were violently dismembered and torn apart, limb-from-limb, as in many abortions, then, this would be a valid analogy. But as long as abortions continue to be performed via utilization of violent means, then this argument cannot be a completely potent one.
Be honest with yourselves here, pro-choicers. If you really were in such a situation with a violinist, would you merely unplug him and leave him to die, or would you hire a doctor to dismember him and tear him apart, ripping off his limbs, crushing his skull, etcetera? If your answer is the former, then this is a major logical error with Thomson's Violinist Argument.
Last edited:
