> The attitude of your argument seems to be the very Catholic one of, "You had sex, so now, ha, pay the consequences."
I don't think I was making an argument -- I certainly didn't intend to. I certainly wasn't making *that* one.
What I was commenting on was what seems to me the curious weakness of Thompson's argument.
As a moral matter, I don't think one would entitled to deprive the cointubated violinist in Thompson's scenario of the means of life, even if it meant nine months of proximity to a violinist -- horrors. (I'd definitely pull the plug if she insisted on practicing, though.)
However, I do think a pregnant woman is entitled to abort if she wants to. If I accept Thomspon's argument, then I'm being inconsistent. But to me the cases seem quite different.
I'm not enough of a moral philosopher to articulate where the difference lies. But I don't think we ought to give up the difference, as Thompson does or seems to.
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org