Dr. David Boonin's Pro Abortion argument

[BandGuy]

Philosopher Dr. David Boonin, as seen here:  https://www.facebook.com/david.boonin/about , asserts the following argument for abortion in the preceding video:

1.  Concedes that all humans have the right to life, even the unborn fetus.
2.  Asserts, however, that they do not have right to live off the mother should the mother not so choose to allow the baby to use her body in such a manner.
3.  Uses the comparison of a man in the hospital who needs bone marrow to live and hooks himself up to you.  Even though you might voluntarily allow this in order to save his life, if you should decide later that this is too much of an inconvenience to you, then you have the right to unhook yourself from the bone marrow patient and then allow him to die.
4.  Summation:  All humans, even the unborn have the right to life.  No human, even the unborn, has the right to live off your body. 
5.  Clarifications:  If you are simply unhooking yourself from the baby (as, he argues, is the case with RU486 and other versions of abortion which he claims do not actively kill the baby, but rather, simply unhooks it from the mother, that is not infanticide, but merely making him / her have to live and find viability without the mother, then the baby's right to life, as he argues, has not been violated.

My short take on this:  I think his arguments are severely idiotic and illogical.  I might share why in more detail later, but I am curious to read other people's thoughts first and see if they are thinking the same as me or have other ideas about this.  You may watch him deliver and defend these arguments in the debate video below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RobCjM0ZLA

 

[Ransom]

*shrug*

Nothing new; it's just a rehash of Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist argument from 1970.

Personal autonomy is the best argument the poor-choicers have. Which obviously isn't saying much.

 

[Ransom]

First, the violinist [or man needing marrow] is artificially attached to the woman. A mother's unborn baby, however, is not surgically connected, nor was it ever "attached" to her. Instead, the baby is being produced by the mother's own body by the natural process of reproduction. . . .

Thompson ignores a second important distinction. In the violinist illustration, the woman might be justified withholding life-giving treatment from the musician under these circumstances. Abortion, though, is not merely withholding treatment. It is actively taking another human being's life through poisoning or dismemberment. A more accurate parallel with abortion would be to crush the violinist or cut him into pieces before unplugging him.

Third, the violinist illustration is not parallel to pregnancy because it equates a stranger/stranger relationship with a mother/child relationship. This is a key point and brings into focus the most dangerous presumption of the violinist illustration, also echoed in McDonagh's thesis. Both presume it is unreasonable to expect a mother to have any obligations towards her own child. . . .

Thompson is mistaken in presuming that pregnancy is the thing that expropriates a woman's liberty. Motherhood does that, and motherhood doesn't end with the birth of the child. Unlike the woman connected to the violinist, a mother is not released in nine months. Her burden has just begun. If Thompson's argument works, then no child is safe from a mother who wants her liberty.

In the end, both Thompson's and McDonagh's arguments prove too much. They allow us to kill any human being who is dependent upon us, young or old, if that person restrains our personal liberty.

- Greg Koukl, Unstringing the Violinist

 

[BandGuy]

Dr. Boonin counters that argument by asserting that a woman consented to having sex, not to donating her body to another human for 9 months.  IOW, he separates the two and finds no correlation that places the responsibility on the woman for her own choices and decisions.  See how weird and stupid his logic is?

 

[Ransom]

Dr. Boonin counters that argument by asserting that a woman consented to having sex, not to donating her body to another human for 9 months.

I consented to skiing, not breaking my neck on that low-hanging tree branch I wasn't watching for.

 

[BandGuy]

Dr. Boonin counters that argument by asserting that a woman consented to having sex, not to donating her body to another human for 9 months.

I consented to skiing, not breaking my neck on that low-hanging tree branch I wasn't watching for.

The obvious difference is that in skiing, while there is definitely a danger of an accident, people go skiing all of the time without getting hurt.  If you have sex, the primary purpose / original intent is to make a baby, and the likelihood is very high that you will do just that.  If I put my lips to my trombone mouthpiece and buzz my lips, there is a high likelihood that a musical sound will come out because that is what the activity is meant to do.  The primary purpose of skiing is not to have an accident and get injured.

 

[BandGuy]

First, the violinist [or man needing marrow] is artificially attached to the woman. A mother's unborn baby, however, is not surgically connected, nor was it ever "attached" to her. Instead, the baby is being produced by the mother's own body by the natural process of reproduction. . . .

Thompson ignores a second important distinction. In the violinist illustration, the woman might be justified withholding life-giving treatment from the musician under these circumstances. Abortion, though, is not merely withholding treatment. It is actively taking another human being's life through poisoning or dismemberment. A more accurate parallel with abortion would be to crush the violinist or cut him into pieces before unplugging him.

Third, the violinist illustration is not parallel to pregnancy because it equates a stranger/stranger relationship with a mother/child relationship. This is a key point and brings into focus the most dangerous presumption of the violinist illustration, also echoed in McDonagh's thesis. Both presume it is unreasonable to expect a mother to have any obligations towards her own child. . . .

Thompson is mistaken in presuming that pregnancy is the thing that expropriates a woman's liberty. Motherhood does that, and motherhood doesn't end with the birth of the child. Unlike the woman connected to the violinist, a mother is not released in nine months. Her burden has just begun. If Thompson's argument works, then no child is safe from a mother who wants her liberty.

In the end, both Thompson's and McDonagh's arguments prove too much. They allow us to kill any human being who is dependent upon us, young or old, if that person restrains our personal liberty.

- Greg Koukl, Unstringing the Violinist

The difference between the stringed violinist argument and Boonin's argument seems to be that the person with the bone marrow voluntarily hooked himself up and then later, decided he didn't want to continue.  I guess it is merely a slight variation of the original nonsense argument.

 

[Ransom]

I guess it is merely a slight variation of the original nonsense argument.

It is. The point of the argument is not how the violinist or the person needing marrow got there - though the fact that as a general rule, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between intercourse and pregnancy that doesn't exist in the other case - but that the donor has an absolute right to decide whether or not he wants to be hooked up.

At best, the violinist argument can be used to justify abortion on demand in the case of a pregnancy caused by rape. Otherwise, the analogy doesn't wash at all.