Thompson’s Abortion Article: Analogy of the Violinist

Is Thomson’s analogy strong or weak? The main analogy argument based on Thompson’s Abortion article is the violinist scenario she uses. The violinist scenario is an example of abortion but from a different angle. The author describes the scenario as a violinist being plugged to someone to help save the violinist by extracting kidney blood to fight off the poison in the violinist body because you both share the same blood type. This is the only method to save the violinist. The author then states the fact that the only way to unplug yourself is to unplug the violinist, which will kill him. If not, you would have to wait only nine moths until the violinist is fully recovered and you can be safely unplugged from him with no harm done. Therefore, the solution for the argument the author is trying to provide is that you have the same blood type to save the violinist, unplugging yourself from him will kill him, therefore waiting nine months to fully heal the violinist is the right thing to do, and you can save his life. Going back to the article based on abortion, by analogy the author is trying to make a comparison between the violinist scenario and abortion. Two things that are being compared is the life of the mother and her fetus, and the dying violinist who needs help. These two things are similar because both scenarios are in a predicament to save a life, or take a life. Also, another similarity is that the violinist and the fetus are both entitled to the right of life, and their right to life shouldn’t be devalued. The only difference between the two scenarios is that the fetus has no freedom of speech because it lies within the mother’s stomach. The fetus cannot defend its life, and is powerless. Ultimately the fetus cannot b...

... middle of paper ...

...eople joined in marriage. Sex before marriage is not promoted, and as stated before to avoid unwanted pregnancy sex before marriage should be prohibited to decrease the amount of abortions. Furthermore, the point is that the fetus’ did not give the mother his or hers consent to terminate their life.

In conclusion, Thomson’s analogy is weak, out of context, irrelevant, and hypocritical. If its okay to kill a fetus which is still consider alive, than you might as well say it is okay to kill a three year-old kid. It is technically the same thing, the only difference is that one can speak, one can’t. It is also weak because who gave us the right to devalue the right of life for someone else? Also, if the mother is entitled to her body and can do whatever she pleases, the stranger is also entitled to not help the dying violinist. Therefore, Thomson’s argument is weak.