Luke 1:41  “When Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb.”

There is an argument offered by the pro-abortion community on why the fetus – the “babe in her womb” (as our verse this week says) – even if they grant personhood from conception, may be aborted. They begin by explaining the argument for the Pro-Life position:

Premise 1: Every person has a right to life. Premise 2: The fetus, from conception, is a person.

Conclusion: Therefore, the fetus has a right to life.

Let us first define some terms: “conception,” “zygote,” “embryo” and “fetus.” How are they different?

• Human conception = the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both.
• Human “zygote” = a developing person produced at conception.
• Human “embryo” = a developing person from conception, usually to the 8th week.
• Human “fetus” = a developing person after conception to birth (usually from 8^th week onward).

Turns out these 4 terms all define the same thing: a person is a human being.

We all would agree the mother has a right to decide what will happen in and to her body. But we also all agree the person’s right to life outweighs the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body.

So, if the above syllogism works (i.e., if Premises 1 and 2 are true, and the Conclusion follows from the Premises, the Conclusion is certain – it is beyond dispute. To abort the person is morally impermissible.

This is where the Pro-Abortion argument called “The Violinist Thought Experiment” is brought up as an effective argument for aborting this tiny living human who is attached to the mother. It goes like this.

“One morning, you wake up in bed and are attached to a famous, unconscious violinist with a fatal kidney illness. Because of you have the right blood type, the Society of Music Lovers kidnapped you and attached the violinist’s circulatory system to yours, so your kidneys will extract poisons from his blood.

The hospital director tells you, ‘We’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you – but it is done – the violinist is attached to you. To detach you could kill him. It is only for 9 months. We can then detach him from you because his kidneys will recover.’ Are you morally obligated to accept this for the next 9 months?

The hospital director then says: ‘You’ve got to keep the violinist attached to you because all persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. You do have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’s right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body.’

We all think this is outrageous. So, doesn’t that mean there is something wrong with the Pro-Life argument, that the fetus’s right to life outweighs the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body?

Is it immoral to detach from the violinist, who most likely will die if you do, or should you be forced to stay attached to the violinist? If you say you are justified to detach, then why doesn’t the pregnant mother have the same right to detach from her unborn child, even though abortion – the detachment – will kill the child?”

But there are several reasons for why the “Violinist Argument” is a poor analogy for abortion.

Reason #1: It is extraordinary for the violinist to attach to you to use your kidneys to stay alive because your kidneys were not made for the violinist. But the mother’s uterus is made to sustain the fetus. This is not extraordinary but ordinary and the natural design for creating and sustaining life.

Reason #2: There is a difference between “killing” and “letting die”. If I am attached to an already-sick person and I disconnect, they are not dying because I disconnected. They were already dying from the illness that caused their kidney failure. But in an abortion, you do not have a sick person who needs you to survive. You have a healthy person. When you rip the fetus out of the womb, you are killing that child.

Reason #3: In the case of the violinist, I actually do not have to let the violinist use my kidneys because I am not responsible for the health of the violinist. But in the case of the pregnant woman, she in fact is morally responsible for the health of the fetus. The mother is the reason the fetus exists!

The Pro-Life argument stands for why the unborn baby’s right to life trumps the mother’s right to choose.

“The Evidence of Faith’s Substance” _ Article #625