Abortion and the Violinist Argument

Even the thought of posting on this topic is stressful. There are so many angles and perspectives that the debate has formed over the years (definition of “baby/fetus,” dangers of birth, rape, rights of all people involved, finances and socio-economic choices, helping pregnant mothers vs. making choices for them, who gets to make these decisions anyway…and the list goes on and on). I’ve had the debate hundreds of times. I’ve seen the videos. I know the passages. 

And yet, I might be in the same position as many folks who long to present a final, authoritative conclusion: I haven’t talked to many people who have considered or who have experienced an abortion. I know of some, but not nearly enough. (And by the way, I’m obviously a middle-class, white, male, so I’ve learned to gain authority from the highest truth, but present it with humility and not with force. Listening first is always helpful.)

So this post is not about any of the topics listed above, because as much as “conservatives” or “pro-life” want to focus on the fact that a baby is made in God’s image and has the right to live no matter what (and I would agree), the point may be moot.

Of course, some circles still debate that statement. (That would largely be the terminology debate, including the stats regarding what a baby can do in the womb, etc). 

The purpose of this post is to prompt folks from my background to dig a little deeper. In 1971 Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote an article, “In Defense of Abortion.” 

Here’s a link to the original article, which appeared in Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971). Reprinted in "Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics," 5^th ed., ed. Ronald Munson (Belmont; Wadsworth, 1996, pp 69-80.)

Here is a YouTube video that summarizes the article in (extremely) elementary form.

I will summarize the article below and then give some thoughts on it, so this is a specific discussion of the topic. I am not going to dive into all the other angles. This is a significant piece of the puzzle because it is foundational for much of the arguments we hear today. 

Newsflash: Many people believe whatever’s growing inside the woman is a baby. They also believe abortion is still ok. 

Thomson calls it a “fetus” throughout, but she assumes it is a living, breathing baby/organism throughout the article just to prove that abortion is acceptable. We have to wrestle with this. Otherwise, we are wasting time simply proving that life exists in the womb. We must go a step further. There must be more logical steps to conclude that this “person” should or should not live.

The pro-life argument usually begins and ends with the statement that any and all humans have a right to live. (We can save for other posts the fact that our “arguments” tend to lean towards this issue more than several others.) Since we would see babies as humans, and Thomson assumes it in her article, we would conclude that they have the right to live. 

Thomson’s famous violinist analogy tries to equate keeping someone else alive through medical treatment with pregnancy for nine months. Would I be obligated to do such a thing? Isn’t he a person? Does he have a right to live? After all, if I disconnect the tubes, he dies.

We’ll see where the analogy breaks down a bit later, but we can at least concede that Thomson’s article does best in the extreme cases (e.g., rape, mother’s life in danger). These are difficult conversations, and even if the stats are incredibly low (you can research and read perspectives of former abortion doctors on your own), it deserves further conversation with real people. It’s easy to make blanket statements or quote stats until you’re having a one-on-one with a woman who’s been assaulted or who is having serious challenges in her pregnancy.

Thomson focuses on the concept of self-defense. A woman can surely defend herself against the threat of an unborn child. (Again, we could talk to doctors and see how often this is the case, and in what scenarios this precisely occurs.)

[Side note: Many times it seems that proponents of various positions seem to talk past each other with various terminology simply to prove their point. I would think that “pro-life” people would label some cases of “protecting the mother” as completely moral and not an abortion at all, but the “pro-choice” side assumes it would still be considered murder. (Example: When Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, many groups/protests/articles contained conclusions how ectopic pregnancies would force the mother to be condemned by law. That’s not abortion.)]

So Thomson continues to ask, what is “right to life”? Her answer: the violinist has the right to live, but he does not have the right for me to keep him alive by all measures in my power. That would be extremely kind of me but not required of me. The violinist has no “right” for me to donate my blood or kidneys to him.

Therefore, “right to life” does not mean the right not to be killed, but the right not to be killed unjustly. So now we have to determine if abortion is “unjust” killing in all cases.

Thomson uses a number of further analogies to try to prove her point that abortion is not unjust. She pictures two boys who are given chocolates. It is just for the older boy to share with the younger boy. If he does not share, he is being unjust. The younger boy has a right to half the chocolate. 

But if the chocolates were given to the older boy, the younger boy does not have a right to any of the chocolates. The older boy is simply being a jerk, unkind, and “calloused,” if he sits next to his younger brother and eats the entire box by himself. She concludes again that unplugging from the violinist is not unjust because he has no right to my kidneys.

(Speaking of calloused) Thomson changes the violinist situation. What if it wasn’t for nine months? What if it were for one hour? And my life was not in any danger at all? She says, It may be indecent for me not to remain plugged to him. It may be unkind. But I still am not obligated to do so. He has no right to my kidneys.

Thomson turns to protection during sex, saying the baby can be seen as an intruder. If protection is used, she says it’s an invasion. Are you responsible for a burglar breaking through defenses on your house? (She also pictures seeds/spores floating through screens in a window and taking root in the carpet/infecting the house. I have done all that’s necessary to protect the house, but I have been invaded.)

Again, the article hammers on the self-defense and extreme cases of abortion, but Thomson does not argue well in cases of consensual, unprotected sex. In fact, she admits in Section 7. “[The fetus] is a person for whom the woman has a special kind of responsibility issuing from the fact that she is its mother.”

 Yet, the saddest section is just a few sentences later. “[Parents] do not simply by virtue of their biological relationship to the child who comes into existence have a special relationship for it.” In essence, she claims you become responsible for the child when you take it home. 

And this is where those who claim to be “pro-life” should dig into the argument. This is the philosophical distinction that needs countered, not just whether abortion is right or wrong. Is this just an issue of when life begins? (It can be. That should be sufficient, but as we’ve seen, other can argue it’s “justified”). Is it an issue of responsibility for actions? (It can be. But what about when my actions aren’t the sole cause, and I wasn’t the only decision maker.) So when and on what basis does a parent become a parent? 

Yes, Thomson concludes that unplugging from the violinist is acceptable, but you cannot go over to his table and stab him to death after unplugging. His natural death is not your fault. Intentionally killing him is. We’ll return to this below. [And, of course, her last statement is along the lines of “By the way, a fetus is not a person at conception. I just assumed it was for the sake of this article.”]

Response to Thomson:

We’ve already interacted some with her argument, and it may take reading the article a few times to digest exactly what she’s saying. It’s easy to have knee-jerk reactions or resort to our same five arguments to counter every presentation we hear.

The first step would be to find points of agreement wherever possible. For example, we agree that murder is not okay. (Some would agree with her that capital punishment is close enough to murder that it’s impermissible.) But perhaps the best place to start would be that all people have a right to defend themselves. No one should take an assault or attack in a position of weakness. 

We should take a much stronger position on women who have been assaulted and raped. We should fight for them, come alongside them, grieve with them, offer assistance however possible. And this occurs before any talk about what she does with the baby. I’m all for the highest forms of punishment for rapists.

The differences with Thomson come when discussing the mother/child relationship. This is not a host/predator relationship. This is a mother/child relationship. There is no more appropriate place for the child to be than inside the mother. This is where it belongs. This is no invasion by the baby.

The second disagreement we would have is that abortion is not just unplugging. It is actively killing. It is more like poisoning the violinist and then stabbing him to death. (And I am not speaking as an expert in all things. I don’t know about morning after pills, etc. But videos of abortion, even in early stages of pregnancy, show how brutal this event is).

Third, more than not being host/predator, this is not even a stranger/stranger relationship. This is all about family. What if the violinist was her child? What do you choose then? What if it was her two-month old or five-year old child? This is what’s missing from the article and the argument. 

The dependency of a child doesn’t end at birth. It only gets louder— with crying, tantrums, and constant questioning. If a mother is permitted to kill a fetus because it restrains her liberty, then motherhood has just begun. Her liberty is restricted for many years. This isn’t merely to resort to the timeline of a birth and ask someone when does a “clump of cells” become a baby? That line of reasoning may or may not work. This is asking, When do you begin taking care of, providing for, protecting this living organism? … And when does that end? (A long time from now)

The truth is that in a civilized society, no one has absolute autonomy. That is called anarchy. Everyone has moral obligations to other citizens, and that makes a community function well. One of those primary obligations is a mother (and father) to their children.  

And talking about those fathers is a whole nother post.

My final exhortation here would be to engage in these discussions with civility and kindness. Offer a listening ear, because the debate has raged for so many years. It’s time for personal relationships to mend what years of arguing have torn apart. Once we continue to serve one another and aid those in need, perhaps we can benefit women, their babies, and young families everywhere.