Reply #86: we read this in my senior year in high school

[fnottr]

I'm glad to see someone else familiar with it, because it's basically lays out the foundation of why I'm pro choice. The crux of the argument is that even if the fetus is a human, the state doesn't have the right to force anyone to use their body as a life support device.

The example she uses is basically this:

Suppose there's a famous violinist with a kidney disease. And of everyone in the world, only you can save this violinist by having your circulatory systems entwined for nine months. If you unplug the violinist, he will die. Now the question is: does the government have to right to force you to stay attached to the violinist? To which I would say, no, they do not. It might be selfish not to, but the government cannot force you to stay attached, and unplugging the violinist is not murder, as his condition is the cause of his death.

The way I think of it is:

The government cannot force you to donate a kidney to someone, even if by not donating the kidney that person would die, the government does not have the right to kidnap you and take your kidney. So it is with abortion; the government cannot force a woman to provide her uterus to the fetus.