Saturday, September 27, 2014

Answering the Violinist Argument:

I’ve been answering pro-life questions since I arrived at the position in high school.  Most questions boil down to dissecting slogans, resolving tough ethical dilemmas, and identifying red herrings.  Answering an actual argument in favor of the ethicalness of abortion is a very rare thing.

Today I want to talk about one attempt to do that.  It is called the  Violinist Argument.



The Violinist Argument:

It goes like goes like this:

 You wake up to find yourself hooked to a life support machine.  Also hooked up to the machine is a famous violinist.  A nurse explains that your blood type is the only one which matches that of the Violinist.  In order to keep him alive, you’ll have to be hooked into this machine for 9 months. 

It would be very charitable to submit yourself to supporting this stranger.  But still, he has no legitimate claim to the use of your body. You would do nothing unethical by detaching yourself from him.  Similarly, a growing fetus does not have the right to the body of his/her mother.  So denying the use of the mother’s body through abortion is ethical.


There are three problems with this argument.


1: It doesn’t acknowledge what abortion actually is:

The crux of this argument is that detaching oneself from the Violinist is comparable to abortion.  That would work if abortion simply meant delivering the baby early, cutting the umbilical cord, and leaving him/her to die.  The person’s involvement in the death of the child would be passive.

But that’s not what abortion does.  Abortion utilizes different methods (such as poisoning, stabbing, and dismemberment) to actively kill the baby.  To put the analogy in reverse, abortion would be more like stabbing the Violinist to death.  

Does the person in the Violinist dilemma have the right to stab the Violinist to death?  No.


2: The thing it compares abortion to is illegal anyway:

So now let’s suppose you DO simply deliver the baby unharmed and leave the child to die – in conformance to the Violinist situation.  The argument fails there too. 

That’s because the situation now entails you taking a dependent (namely, your child) and purposefully placing him/her in a situation where he/she will die due to a lack of basic care. 

That situation would be child abandonment – a felony.  Parents are legally obligated by law to meet the basic needs of their children.


3: The baby does have a legitimate, morally binding claim:

The Violinist is a complete stranger and you had nothing to do with his dreadful situation.  So you aren't obligated to help. However, you would be morally obligated to help the Violinist if you were responsible for his illness.


With abortion we’re not talking about a random stranger.  With the notable exception of rape, the parents willingly engaged in an activity that created the child.  Thus, both parents are culpable for placing the kid in the situation of dependency - even if it was by accident. This morally obliges both parents to support the kid in whatever way they can. 



The Idea Beneath it All:

Most people who argue for the ethicalness of abortion do not deploy the Violinist Argument in its fullness.  However, you can learn to recognize it in its shorter form.  This is a real example of someone using it on a message board: 

"You argue that the fetus is not a part of my body.  I agree!  However, my womb and all my supporting organs and brain are my body.  If I choose not to use them to incubate a fetus, that is my right.  That is tough for the fetus, yes.  I might also decide not to donate a kidney to a relative in desperate need resulting in his death.  Again, tough.  But it is still my right to use my body as I see fit.”


At the heart of the Violinist Argument is an idea.  It is disguised by the complex situation because people would recoil in horror if they saw that idea in its bare nakedness:

My absolute right to autonomy means I can abandon my own child to die.

If a person doesn’t immediately recognize the wrongness of that sentiment, then no argument will suffice.   There person has made his/her choice.  All you can do is pray.

Thanks for joining me.



1 comment:

  1. To put it even more clearly, it is the difference between abstention, and active intervention. It is perfectly legal toabstain from feeding a hungry stranger, but another thing altogether to starve him to death.

    ReplyDelete