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

If, we go through both the case study then one thing is common in both of them that is in both the case one body is uncounsious body and another who is taking desicion is consious body because, in first case we cannot be able to consider fetus as consious.

So, in this base i agree with that both the case are similar in one form that in both the case a person who is in consious condition have right to take decision for there own body because they are in that condition were they have to make planning consiously for there future and also another person whose ll get related to them also. Because, if a mother choose abortion as a option then definetly there may be some reason behind that choice because its not just a matter of giving birth its also a matter of giving a good life to one who even don't know about the life. And, in another case another person is famous violinist but another person also living his life and having his own plans so nobody have right to snatch his liberty.