Question

do you agree/disagree with the accepted/assumed analogy - that the two cases are similar - and why?

Passage:

I think that ... the fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A newly
fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn
is an oak tree. But I shall not discuss any of this. For it seems to me to be of great interest
to ask what happens if, for the sake of argument, we allow the premise [we assume
that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception]. How, precisely, are we
supposed to get from there to the conclusion that abortion is morally impermissible?
Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus
is a person, and hardly any time explaining the step from there to the impermissibility
of abortion.... I suggest that the step they take is neither easy nor obvious, that it calls
for closer examination than it is commonly given, and that when we do give it this closer
examination we shall feel inclined to reject it.

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception.
How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person
has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right
to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely
a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide
what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

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 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 be safely 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.

Answer 1

An analogy is a comparison between two objects that highlight respect in which they thought to be similar; it can be a system of objects too.

Like in the first case it talks about the formation and development of new life. The sperm and egg already have life and with the meeting of these two, a new life comes into existence by going through different stages of development. A fetus is indeed a person from the time of its conception and it has life from the beginning otherwise how will it grow? Then he gets his own life after a few weeks that can be verified by different medical test.

In cases where there are chances of a child born handicapped or with abnormal disease ( cannot diagnose 100 percent) or there are chances that mother will have complications or threat to her life a decision can be taken keeping in mind that giving birth is dangerous and risky for mother. A doctor's decision will be a help. but the doctor himself is a human being and err is human.

Best is God, leave everything in his hand, but precaution is a must. If the doctor is a hundred percent sure about his findings then abortion should be permitted. Then also we have seen medical predictions going wrong. Mother does have the right to decide whether she can bear the child or not. In most of the country, abortion is illegal. Everyone has the right to live.

In case of the violinist first of all the music lovers have done an illegal act of kidnapping. Secondly he doctor's act of plugging her into a sick violinist itself is a criminal act. Why none of the music lovers came forward to save their beloved violinist. The lady has the full right to unplug herself from the violinist. Whether it is one day, nine months or nine years the act itself is criminal and unjust.

Both the cases are similar where life is a concern, in the first situation the life has not even come to the world, and in second circumstances the man is near his death if not treated, in short ready to leave the world if not treated. Let the time and situation take its own course. Abortion means killing a life under rare situation is indeed permitted. And making a full blossom life to die with one sick person is absolutely unjust and a crime.