Originally Posted by mcan
The famous violinist thought experiment:
Judith Jarvis Thomson famously postulated this as an analogue for abortion when the pregnancy is a result of rape. (although the same logic can apply to all abortions) that the use of someone else's body as a means for your own sustenance is a kindness provided by that person, and not your right.
This thought experiment need only be altered slightly to apply to questions about who "gets a say" about maintaining or terminating a pregnancy. Suppose, you and your buddy, after listening to this violinist's music decide that you really want the violinist to live, and your buddy happens to have the right blood type. So you go to the violinist and offer to hook him up, and of course he accepts. By that evening, your buddy is hooked up to the violinist and all is good. Of course, two weeks later... Your buddy is getting sick every morning due the extra work put on his kidneys, and hates dragging this violinist around with him everywhere. He decides he no longer wants this burden. Now, should your buddy have to ask your permission to unhook himself?
The analogy fails because the person in question had no part in making the violinist. Said person engaged in no act that was responsible for creating the musician's life, therefore he is not responsible for what happens to him.
When people have kids they are responsible for their well being and up bringing because they are the ones who put the kids on the planet.
There is a giant gap in this violinist reasoning.
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, and disregard of all the rules."
-- George Orwell, Shooting an Elephant