Question

Reconstruct the argument into the standard form of an argument by analogy [start by stating as precisely as possible the exact conclusion for which Thomson is arguing and then articulating, on the basis of the analogy given, how the two situations are similar (the similarity premise 1 is not given explicitly but you have to do this work), etc.]

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

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary.

(Answer) Thompson’s argument is trying to make abortion legal. However, the analogy does not logically befit the problem being discussed. A valid analogy would have only the trope and elements changes but have the similar morality in order to help edify the topic.

However, abortion has always been about both the mother and the child in question. The writer of this “analogy” forgets to include the fact that even in the initial stages, the foetus might not qualify as a fully formed living being but still a potential for life.

The author goes beyond that to compare abortion to being coerced into a 9-month blood transfusion. Firstly, the foetus belongs to the mother in a way that the world famous violinist does not. One is not obliged to take responsibility for someone or something that does not belong to them.

Secondly, the person giving blood to the violinist did not personally cause the violinist to have a life-threatening disease through purposeful and contemplated actions. The mother and biological father, on the other hand, will have intentionally committed an act that has had a live foetus as a consequence.

The point here is that not every human can control the consequence of every action. In the modern world, we might choose the things we want to eat, the music we listen to and make other decisions ourselves. However, we cannot choose the weather, involuntary actions etc. Even the weather is not caused by the activities we perform, unlike a pregnancy.

This would be equivalent to standing in front of a speeding train and saying how you do not want to be killed because it is “your choice.” Similarly, in the case of a foetus, one might get to choose their action but the consequences are not entirely in one’s own hand. The only way a consequence can be controlled is if an action that might lead to the consequence is controlled. Whether or not Thompson advocates abortion is beside the point that the argument of blood transfusion is flawed, just like the flaw he/ she mentions in the “pro-life” argument of people not going beyond proving that a foetus is a living entity.