|
Imagine ... one morning you wake up shocked to discover that you are not in your bedroom,
but in a hospital room. A doctor informs you that you were drugged to keep you unconscious and were abducted. You have tubes
connected from your body to a form on another bed. The doctor explains that your abductors are members of a classical music
appreciation society, and that the person in the adjoining bed is the greatest violinist in the world. The doctor informs
you that the violinist has a fatal kidney ailment, that you have been found to be the one person in the world who is sufficiently
compatible with his system for your kidneys to filter his blood while he recovers from his ailment. His recovery will only
take about nine months. You are informed that you do have a choice in the matter. You can choose to have the tubes disconnected
and leave the hospital. If you choose to do this, however, the violinist will die. Or you can give up a mere nine months of
your life for the betterment of humanity.
In this analogy (http://www.willamette.edu/cla/rhetoric/courses/argumentation/Judith%20Jarvis%20Thompson.pdf, the one who is rendered unconscious, abducted, and involuntarily connected to the violinist is supposed to be analogous
to a woman who is unexpectedly pregnant. The dilemma posed in the analogy is supposed to communicate how outrageous it is
to require a woman in such a circumstance to carry her baby to full term and give birth. The violinist "analogy" is a good
example of how hypothetical scenarios can be crafted so as to build the conclusion into the premises - a fallacy called "begging
the question". The details of the story are also contrived to force a false either-or choice by precluding other possible
choices. Medically, the "analogy" was absurd some 35 years ago when the "analogy" was concocted, and it remains absurd today.
It also fails to be an analogy. The vioinist, who is supposed to be analogous to the baby in utero is a stranger
who is unrelated to the host, who is supposed to represent the unexpectedly pregnant woman. In the real world, a woman participates
in the creation of her baby, if only through her egg being the source of half of the baby's genetic material. Usually her
participation in the physical act that led to the creation of her baby is also voluntary. In the "analogy", during the abduction,
the confinement in a medical facility, and being hooked up to the violinist the host is unconscious and all are done by force.
In real life, the processes of implantation of the baby into the lining of the uterus and the development of the placenta
are both cooperative processes between the baby and the woman's body. In other words, there is nothing analogous to the kidnaping
or the medical facility, and there are no persons corresponding to the kidnappers or the doctor who effected the artificial
hook-up between the two persons. There isn’t even a direct cross-connection of the pregnant woman’s and the baby’s
blood streams. In the "analogy" the host will have no life outside of the medical facility for nine months, and the "dilemma"
is supposed to be analogous to the choice faced by the pregnant woman. In real life, for the vast majority of pregnancies,
the woman isn’t certain she is pregnant for up to a month or two, has almost no restrictions on her life for 5 or more
months from conception, and is able to continue many of her usual activities, subject to some significant limitations and
discomfort, for the rest of her pregnancy. Thus, entirely giving up nine months of life is very different from what a pregnant
woman normally experiences. Almost nothing in the "analogy" is truly analogous to a pregnancy. The details of the story are
contrived to make an unexpected pregnancy seem an unnatural, outrageous burden and imposition on the woman who is pregnant
in order to manipulate the hearer/reader toward the pro-abortion conclusion. The true outrage in all this is the self-serving,
tendentious misrepresentation of the sublime, entirely natural, process that culminates in the birth of a baby.
The violinist "analogy" is fallacious, medically absurd, and fails to be analogous. Nevertheless, this "analogy"
is still advanced by abortion advocates, demonstrating their dedication to abortion, even when it is at the expense of intellectual
honesty.
|