Before I make my case, I have to point out that less than 1% of abortions occur because of rape or incest. (insert statistics) Pro-choice proponents will typically give the following scenario to describe what a fetus is doing to an unwilling mother in order to justify killing it. Imagine that you are drugged and kidnapped. You wake up to find yourself with a bunch of tubes connected to your body. You look to see where the tubes connect and you find that they are connected to an unconscious man. Doctors come in to the room, tell you that you have the exact blood type that this man needs to survive, and you will be held until he recovers. This scenario of being kidnapped and held to keep a man alive is not the same as carrying a baby that resulted from rape. The rapist is similar to the people who kidnapped you, because they both forced something upon you. They fully knew what they were doing. The unconscious man and the unborn baby are also the same. Neither of them asked to be connected to you, nor did they have any knowledge of what was happening. The man and the fetus are innocent bystanders. Pro-choice advocates argue that you shouldn’t be forced to stay connected to the man to save his life, so it is justifiable to unplug yourself. They would also argue with that same reasoning that you shouldn’t have to carry a baby that was forced upon you by rape. However, there is a problem with this analogy. First, if you unplug yourself from the man, you do not know for certain that he will die. Perhaps a miracle will occur and his body will heal itself. However, if you “unplug” yourself from your unborn child, the baby will certainly die. Second, you do not know how long you have to be connected to the man for him to get better, but you do know that a baby only takes forty weeks. Judith Jarvis Thompson presents nearly this exact scenario in her book “A Defense of Abortion.”
Before I make my case, I have to point out that less than 1% of abortions occur because of rape or incest. (insert statistics) Pro-choice proponents will typically give the following scenario to describe what a fetus is doing to an unwilling mother in order to justify killing it. Imagine that you are drugged and kidnapped. You wake up to find yourself with a bunch of tubes connected to your body. You look to see where the tubes connect and you find that they are connected to an unconscious man. Doctors come in to the room, tell you that you have the exact blood type that this man needs to survive, and you will be held until he recovers. This scenario of being kidnapped and held to keep a man alive is not the same as carrying a baby that resulted from rape. The rapist is similar to the people who kidnapped you, because they both forced something upon you. They fully knew what they were doing. The unconscious man and the unborn baby are also the same. Neither of them asked to be connected to you, nor did they have any knowledge of what was happening. The man and the fetus are innocent bystanders. Pro-choice advocates argue that you shouldn’t be forced to stay connected to the man to save his life, so it is justifiable to unplug yourself. They would also argue with that same reasoning that you shouldn’t have to carry a baby that was forced upon you by rape. However, there is a problem with this analogy. First, if you unplug yourself from the man, you do not know for certain that he will die. Perhaps a miracle will occur and his body will heal itself. However, if you “unplug” yourself from your unborn child, the baby will certainly die. Second, you do not know how long you have to be connected to the man for him to get better, but you do know that a baby only takes forty weeks. Judith Jarvis Thompson presents nearly this exact scenario in her book “A Defense of Abortion.”