>This is of course Judith Thompson's argument in her paper _A Defense of
>Abortion_, which I mentioned in an earlier post. It has the problem, from a
>leftist point of view, of being based on the proposition that no one has a
>right to the means of life if others must provide that means when they don't
>want to.
Why is this a problem? If a person in London needs a kidney transplant, and I'm the only one with a compatible kidney, most people would argue against forcing me to fly to England and give up my kidney to this patient, even though my refusal essentially signs his death warrant. Simply because the burden this places on people is too great - dying people, or people in mortal danger would be granted enormous power over the rest of us. Unjustifiably, I would say.
>I used to point out to my right wing students that it was hard to
>attack Thompson and oppose welfare. To my pro-choice students I used to note
>that it was hard to use Thompson and defend welfare.
This doesn't follow. The real problem is private ownership of productive capital. This is a form of outright theft, and it is this crime which creates the conditions in which people need welfare.
In the case where everyone has (roughly) equal access to the means of production, if an individual is slothful and doesn't perform any productive labor, then I would agree that others would not be obligated to provide for him/her.
Brett