In every country, abortion is one of the ethical issues they are facing. Judith Jarvis Thompson’s case of the violinist is one of the important ethical argument for abortion that do not depend on the moral status of the fetus. As stated in her 1971 essay entitled, “A Defense of Abortion,” she argues that abortion is morally accepted, even though that the fetus already has a full human right.
According to Bukaweski (2013), even if Thomson’s argument is succeeded at showing that “the fetus has no right on the mother’s body, the fact that the mother is ultimately acts immorally in aborting a fetus with full human rights.” In Judith Thomson’s famous case entitled, “The Violinist,” she used this case regarding to her argument of the involuntary use of one’s organs. In this case she invokes that the case attempts to prove that the fetus lacks the right to avoid abortion after allowing the fetus a right to life corresponding to the mother’s right to life. As stated by Wiland (2000) in “Unconscious Violinist and the Use of Analogies in Moral Argument,” he used the case of the violinist to conclude four aspects which are the consent, family relation, artificiality, and distinction of killing and letting die. Also, Wiland (2002) mentioned that “we need an analogy that helps us figure out whether abortion is permissible even if the prenatal have the same moral status as the postnatal.” The analogy is also compared to an unwanted pregnancy caused by rape, wherein the women is being raped therefore it caused an unwanted pregnancy. So that, the baby’s right to life is not enough to persuade the mother to save it. In relation of this analogy in the argument of the case, is that “the violinist’s right of life does not give the violinist a right to your body.”
In my opinion, the dilemma shows that the violinist does not have any relation to the stranger. Therefore, the violinist does not have any right to have a life support from the stranger, unlike the baby who is in the womb of the stranger that baby has a 100% relation to the stranger. As I have read in one of the aspects that Wiland (2002) mentioned, he explained in the aspect of the issues regarding to consent, If the pregnancy of the women is consensual, then her responsibility is to give the right to life for the baby, however this might be different in the case of the violinist, knowing that he does not have any consent by using the body of the stranger. The stranger may disconnect from him because she does not have any responsibility to sustain life for the unconscious violinist. Nevertheless, this does not mean that in every situation you where in, you can simply disconnect since there are instance that you bear responsibility that need for your body organs.
127 our experts are availableright now
This may also explain in the second aspect given by Wiland (2002) which is the family relation/ familial relation, based on my understanding in this aspect, each one of us has a duty and responsibility in our family mostly, when one of our family members has in greater need. An example of these, when one of our family members needs a blood donation because he was suffering from leukemia and you are the one that is compatible for donating the blood in order for him to survive. Another example this is based on my mother’s experience where she donated her kidney to my uncle in order for him to sustain his life. Based on these given examples, it shows that our duties in our family is stronger than the duties to those who are strangers. In the case of the violinist, the stranger whom is attached to a complete stranger (which is the violinist). Since the stranger who is pregnant is “attached” to her baby. This may illustrate that the stranger may disconnect to the violinist does not mean that she may disconnect herself from the baby in her womb.
In the third aspect which is artificiality, in my own understanding this aspect implies us that the need of the violinist to sustain his life may be done by the technology resources, unlike the baby in the womb of the stranger that is bodily dependent in her body. As we all know, the reliance of the baby on his mother is the normal and natural thing in the world. This aspect may best explain why the violinist is not related to the stranger but the baby. The last aspect by Wiland (2002) is the killing and letting die, wherein if the stranger disconnect herself from the violinist surely, he will die for the kidney failure. With the connection of this to the stranger who is pregnant, it is completely different. Allowing the violinist to die in his kidney failure does not imply that the stranger will may abort the baby.
References:
- Bukaweski, D. (2013), When rights are wrong; tacit consent and bodily autonomy. Florida University Libraries. Retrieved from:
https://fsu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fsu:209903/datastream/PDF/view - Wiland, E. (2000). Unconscious violinists and the use of analogies in moral argument. Journal of Medical Ethics. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12198788_Unconscious_violinists_and_the_use_of_analogies_in_moral_argument
