In 1971, the Philosophy and Public Affairs journal published a pro-abortion argument titled “A Defense of Abortion”, commonly called the “violinist argument”, which quickly gained popularity at that time. The argument’s author, Judith Jarvis Thompson, PhD, granted that a fetus is a human person from the moment of conception. However, Jarvis believed rape was a justifiable excuse for abortion.
Understanding that true pro-lifers reject intentional abortion regardless of the circumstances, she constructed an argument analogous to a rape-pregnancy situation to demonstrate the “irrationality” of pro-lifers’ unflinching position. Her argument goes as follows:
You wake up one morning and find yourself back-to-back in bed with an unconscious [famous] violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment and can safely be unplugged from you.
At first glance, this pro-abortion defense seems to resemble the unwanted act of rape and the consequent unwanted pregnancy, that is, a person is kidnapped (an injustice comparable here to rape) and the violinist is attached (compared to the resulting unwanted pregnancy). To detach the violinist is to kill him. Similarly, to abort a child is to kill him/her.
Thus, we are faced with an apparent conundrum. If we say that the rape victim does not have the right to abort her child, then we must also say that the person in this scenario does not have the right to remove the violinist. I will refute this argument with four counterarguments.
Rebuttal #1: Natural Maturation vs. Unnatural Preservation
Pregnancy is the natural end of the sexual act regardless of how the sexual act was carried out. The womb is the natural place for a newly conceived human being to prepare for life outside the womb. Therefore, as evil and reprehensible as the act of rape is, a child conceived in rape naturally exists and naturally resides in its mother’s womb until birth.
Natural pregnancy, regardless of circumstances, is diametrically opposed to the unnatural “plugging” of an individual into someone else’s body. Based on this fact alone, the violinist argument is not an adequate analogy, because natural maturation in the womb is not equivalent to unnatural preservation via artificial attachment outside the womb.
Rebuttal #2: Murder vs. Death
A key principle to remember is that murder is not the same as allowing someone to die. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human being by another human being. Direct abortion fits this definition perfectly, which is why we can truthfully say that abortion is murder. Removing an artificially conjoined person from someone else’s body is not murder because we are simply not made for this type of joining. However, a woman is designed to enwomb a child no matter the circumstances that led to her pregnancy.
Additionally, abortion entails actively destroying a child in the womb 1) via chemicals, 2) by vacuuming the fetus out of the womb (vacuum aspiration), 3) by dismemberment, 4) by injecting lethal chemicals and inducing labor, and 5) partial-birth abortions. Conversely, removing someone who is artificially using your body to stay alive is simply allowing this person to die. It is not the direct and intentional killing of a person and therefore is not murder!
Rebuttal #3: Financial/Mental Stress Does Not Un-Murder Someone
Motives are sometimes used as excuses for abortion. Therefore, we should look at the motives for aborting children conceived in rape. Women impregnated by rapists sometimes seek abortions because 1) they do not want to be reminded of the circumstances in which their children were created; 2) they suffer from psychological trauma; and 3) they sometimes do not have the necessary resources to care for the child. But let us take a moment and apply these motives to mothers who have birthed children conceived in rape.
One day, when a child is three years old, the mother looks down at the child and realizes he closely resembles his rapist father. Her childcare resources are slim, and she is at her wits end. Her anger and frustration are ignited. She grabs the nearest solid object and delivers multiple blows to the child’s head, immediately resulting in his death.
Surely, we can all agree that this child was murdered. We can also agree that this child was the same child who resided in his mother’s womb just three or so years earlier. Accordingly, if the mother’s actions constitute murder when the child is outside the womb, then they also constitute murder when he is inside the womb. The child’s age or residence, whether inside or outside the womb, does not change the fact that this innocent human life was intentionally destroyed by his mother. Thus, financial/mental stress is not a reason to murder a child at any age or residence.
Rebuttal #4: Abortion Is Not a Solution
An inherent problem with the violinist argument is that it condones abortion as a solution for rape. Murdering a child, whether inside or outside the womb, is not a solution for anything. Rather, properly educating our children about human dignity, demonstrating love and respect for others, well-funded and well-equipped investigative agencies, tougher sentencing for sex-related crimes, access to good psychological services and childcare resources, and, most importantly, bringing God back into society are how we begin to solve this problem.
We must also remember that rapists victimize women, and abortionists continue this victimization by preying on them. The woman who is raped is victimized twice and, consequently, travels down a dark, lonely path because she must now deal with both rape and murder by predatory men. Sadly, these actions often lead to depression and suicide. Thus, abortion is not the answer. Rather, it exacerbates the problem.
The Reason for This Article
I wanted to write about this argument because it is one of the more thought-provoking pro-abortion arguments. The typical pro-abortion drivel (e.g., it’s a woman’s choice, the baby is just a clump of cells, who are you to impose your morality on someone else, etc.) is relatively easy to refute, but the “violinist argument” took some thought to create and some thought to destroy. Regardless, no matter how advanced pro-abortion arguments are, direct abortion will always and forever be murder.
If you are contemplating having an abortion, please contact your local Catholic parish and/or local government for alternatives. If you have had an abortion, please reach out to Rachel’s Vineyard, a nonprofit organization that offers spiritual and mental health resources for women who have had an abortion. Also, Christ, through His Catholic Church, always has His arms open in the sacrament of Confession, where he waits to distribute His mercy. Do not allow abortion to prevent you from being a member of Christ’s family.
28 thoughts on “Taking on a Popular Pro-Abortion Argument”
Pretty lame Mr Guyear. Habeas corpus and the amendments I’ve cited obviously do implicate the question of whether you or any other Torquemada get to lock up a women in prison. The point is so obvious it doesn’t require defense. You’re a walking 1983 lawsuit waiting to happen. And a good example of why religious fanatics are a threat to the Republic and never to be trusted because their religion gives them permission to hate those that don’t agree with them.
Thanks for reading my article and for contributing nothing to the conversation. Another wacky pro-choicer who refuses to believe that abortion is murder.
Right. So now we come to the end of the hypotheticals and ask how far from free will is the idea of forced births. I don’t think it’s possible to know the heart of someone who is contemplating an abortion, never mind assume that an internal, spiritual conversion could take place even moments before it occurs. In my opinion, another way to fight this is not unlike the fight for climate change. Years of data and evidence made it irrefutable that we are poisoning our world – and it will abort us if this continues. So we fight to change the behavior. What I love about eastern deism is their view on cause and effect. They believe in karma. I do believe that every life taken results in virtual carnage, that like climate, can be shown to destroy a physical world. Somehow we need more empirical evidence that what the courts allowed has caused true damage to our species. Hinduism teaches that the killing of animals for food causes war. God felt the same way before man ‘changed’ God’s mind, There is irrefutable missing evidence that could make the case for stopping abortion but it has to be revealed, not unlike the climate debate which is now over. I don’t have answers to where we are or should go. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the subject and I will now end my line of reasoning.
Thanks OP! Man is inclined to sin, so murder by any means, just like trashing our environment, should not surprise us. However, we don’t have to wait for some revelation on how to deal with abortion just like we don’t have to wait on some revelation on how to deal with climate change. People of good will, especially those who lovingly follow God, should, are, and have been developing ways to deal with these situations.
Regarding the heart of the woman who is seeking abortion, we can most certainly know her heart through investigative efforts, just as investigators, lawyers, and judges determine the level of culpability for any crime. But, first, abortion must be criminalized. This will lead to a dramatic drop in abortions. Then, back-alley abortions will begin. And just like any other felony crime, undercover agents and confidential informants will expose those who break the law. Doctors and mothers who seek to murder children in the womb will be arrested and sentenced, just like those who murder others outside the womb.
Your insistence that we must know the heart of someone in order to seek justice is a cop out. You’re no more pro-life than folks like Joe Biden. Thank you for taking the time to have this conversation.
One “missing” evidence can be found in China. Because of their one child policy and forced abortions to enforce it, an entire generation of men have few wives available. The increase of rape is recorded. The increase of men having to go outside of their own nation to find a wife is also recorded.
During my twenty-five years of teaching in Catholic seminaries, my uneasiness regarding the issue of abortion never went away. Reading right-wing Catholic pamphlets, I was alerted to “the alarming growth of the abortion industry” and to the unsavory hints that American public life was on the slippery slope toward sanctioning sterilization of the unfit and elimination of the unproductive. My wake-up call came, however, when I became an uncover agent within Planned Parenthood. Here, then, is where my story must begin. Go to http://www.churchonfire.net/?page_id=240
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, pray for our nation,
Dr. Aaron Milavec
Thank you for your comments and for your website!!
Pingback: TVESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
So, taking on rebuttal #4, I can only come away with one pro-life solution under a law that would result in saving the life of the baby. The victim is taken into protective custody until coming to term, after which she is given the choice to keep or give up her child. Sounds about right – the end justifying the means.
Thanks for reading the article! Rebuttal #4’s thesis is that abortion is not a solution for rape and that women who choose abortion after being raped are revictimized by abortion doctors. I’m not sure what protective custody has to do with the argument?
I guess the hypothesis is that in order to save the life you would have to do more than overturn RvW. Don’t forget, you also likened it to murder which is a crime. In order to
prevent the murder you would have to take the would be perp into custody to protect
the child which would require a law that is in force before the fact. Does this end justify
the means ?
Okay. Thanks for clarifying!! I agree that more than overturning RvW is needed, but the article’s purpose was to refute Dr. Thompson’s argument. However, directly beneath the Rebuttal #4 subheading, I listed a number of things that need to be done to improve domestic conditions and create an environment in which women are less likely to be raped and less likely to abort their children.
To your point on taking the perp into custody before the rape is committed, wouldn’t that be nice. Unfortunately, we typically have to deal with crimes after the fact. Even so, a child conceived in rape is still a human being and has every right to exist by the mere fact of his/her existence. You would not say to a child outside the womb, “I know you exist, but you do not have a right to exist and so I must murder you.” So, why say this to the same child who was inside the womb just a few months/years earlier? Rebuttal #3 explicates this point.
Ordinary Papist,
Perhaps you would allow me to ask you a question. Is rape ever a reason to murder a child outside the womb? Yes or no and why or why not. Thanks!
I am pro-life, always have been. The word murder is a technical/legal term that the Supreme
Court did not address, so I won’t be commenting on your subjective viewpoint. The underlying response that I was eliciting had to do more with your viewpoint. So, back
at you – if you were the king of the world and could formulate a law that would take into
protective custody … would you enact it ? I wouldn’t, any more than God would take away
my free will. Your points of human intervention is, it seems, the only weapons we have
to end this scourge besides making it unavailable through legislation.
Protective custody? Are you saying that the woman should be taken into protective custody to protect the child from his own mother?
Yes, if you believe it’s murder. Once again, my (loaded) question to you is, would YOU go
that far, if you could, to save the life of that child ?
If your life were being threatened by someone and you reported it to the police. Assuming the threat is determined to be real and immediate, would the police put you in protective custody? My guess is that they would. Why? Because you’re a human being with the intrinsic right to exist, assuming you don’t forfeit that right by trying to take someone else’s life. Therefore, a child in the womb, who has the same intrinsic value and right, should be afforded the same protection.
Also, the definition of murder is objective when discussing it within the context of morality. Murder is the intentional and malicious taking of another human life, regardless of how a government defines it. Thus, murder is murder regardless of the human’s place of residence.
So, taking on the next hypothetical, it stands to reason that if the Supreme court makes it
a capital crime to procure an abortion, does it make any legal and moral sense to allow a murder to occur and THEN prosecute the perp rather than stop the crime at its source and take the person into protective custody until such time that the danger is over and the prosecutor could ameliorate the charge to attempted murder.
What does our system do right now with murders or attempted murders of people outside the womb?
Wow. Saying the quiet part out loud: taking the woman into “protective custody” until she bears the child. So, I guess we suspend habeas corpus and all constitutional rights of the mother. And lock her up.
I used to think that pro-choice people were exaggerating when they said anti-abortionists were about continuing the subjugation of women. But now I think they actually are correct. Are coerced gynecologist exams part of the regime? How about the Gestapo investigating to high percentage of miscarriages (because who knows if it was merely a ‘miscarriage’)?
When “pro-life” people start protesting mass shootings and seek to ban AR-15s, maybe they’ll get some credit for good faith and consistency. Until then, many of them fall squarely in the camp of those obsessively controlling women. It has been this way since some male scribe decided to blame the Fall on Adam listening to his wife about the apple. Instead of using that as a rationale for the horrible treatment of women for millennia, they both should have been committed to the psych ward for making decisions based on a Talking Snake. Very credible.
You people are scary. It’s like a malign Harry Potter story. Except you believe all the magic.
Mary, your phrase “constitutional rights of the mother” to murder her child is ridiculous. Write back when you have something intelligent to say.
Well said Nate. It doesn’t matter whether it is a famous violinist or or a victim of rape. The key questions are:
First, if it’s growing, isn’t it alive?
Second, if it has human parents, isn’t it human?
Third, human beings like you and me are valuable, aren’t we? (Steve Wagner)
Thank you, Dennis! Great points. I would like to add to your third point in case the readers draw an erroneous conclusion. Although all humans have an intrinsic value, due to being made in the image and likeness of God, no human has the right to prolong their life by any means they choose. I cannot force you to use your body parts to save or prolong my life. This is because nature dictates that I should not force someone to give up their body parts to save me. However, a baby in the womb has the right to grow in his/her mother’s womb by nature because the womb is the natural place in which a human being receives nourishment and protection for the first nine months of his/her life.
Great article, Nate. I think also that the kidnapping idea of the famous violinist is a completely erroneous theme. Although yes, the baby will be residing inside the mother without her permission for the nine months, she will still be able to go about her life unimpeded, for the most part; unlike the person in the violinist analogy who is truly kidnapped. And although a pregnant person may feel like she is wearing a sign on her forehead that says “victim of rape” making her want to stay indoors and not go out, no one can see it but her. She is still actually free to live her life. The rape victim should be going to counseling to help her get through the trauma whether or not a pregnancy occurred; but therapy (individual or support groups) could also help a pregnant rape victim feel more normalized in her pregnancy.
Thank you, Nancy! Excellent points.
Additionally, in another section of Thompson’s argument, she states, “A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree.” Her comparison is completely illogical. An acorn is dormant until germination, whereas a fertilized ovum is actively growing from the moment of fertilization. Also, an acorn cannot be compared to a fertilized ovum because the acorn itself has not been germinated or, in a sense, “fertilized.” Acorns become trees when they fall into rich, moist soil. This subsequent process is called germination. At the moment of germination, the acorns begin to sprout taproots and shoots and becomes a tiny oak tree. This moment of sprouting is comparable to fertilization. By observing Thompson’s arguments, we can see how sin darkens one’s mind.
What’s really dark is the snarky pleasure you take in thinking about locking up women are n violation of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 13th and 14th Amendments and forcing them to be a slave to your will, against their will. Your glee at female subjugation practically oozes from your commentary.
Mary, sin has certainly darkened your mind to the point that your understanding of the Constitution is worse than your understanding of my article. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MURDER ONE’S CHILD. Simple stuff.