Answering The Best Pro Choice Argument - YouTube
First of all, it's awesome to see people engaging at a deeper philosophic level!
My thoughts - the violinist thought experiment already grants 1) fetuses are equal to born humans, 2) fetuses have an equal right to life. Most pro-choice advocates don't grant these.
She mentions the lack of consent as a differentiating factor in the example. Pregnancy is usually due to consent while the violinist example is not. Yet we can easily reformulate the violinist example into a situation where she voluntarily consented to hook her body up to the violinist to save his life (she being the only person in the world who can save his life). Yet, just because she consented doesn't mean that she doesn't have the right to change her mind in the following 9 months.
She mentions parents have obligations to their children in ways strangers don't - example: obligation to feed their children and not neglect them.
She mentions how feeding a child in the woods is "basic care" (insinuating that basic care is a duty), but hooking your body up to a violinist is "extraordinary care" (insinuating that extraordinary care is not a duty).
She thinks that a parent has a duty to allow a pregnancy because that is "basic care" (uterus is doing what it is supposed to with low cost to the parent), but parents don't have a duty to give organs to children because that is "extraordinary care" (giving a kidney away is not its normal purpose, hence high cost to the parent).
She mentions that impact on a parent's health and ability to care for their family constitute "extraordinary care", but seems to fail to see how close pregnancy rides that line - pregnancy being something that does impact health and ability to care for family.
Then she tries to justify pro-life position even in the face of rape, because the abortion is just like rape, a stronger person assaulting a weaker person. This is probably her best argument, but it assumes fetuses have the same rights as a victim of rape. If some evil doctor cuts open a girl (assault) and places a fetus inside them, it is basically concluding that the girls right to undo the procedure is less important of a right than the fetus's right.
Post-rape pro-life positions seem super harmful from an evolutionary perspective. Evolution basically views crimes as selfish strategies in the game of evolution. Rape is a selfish strategy to copy your genes at a faster rate by violating other's consent. By being pro-life in the face of rape, from the perspective of evolution, you are saying that you want the rapist's strategy to succeed and create a world with more genes that appreciate the strategy of rape.
To me, it seems like most pro-life people have just never been educated on the sociology of women's rights and how teen pregnancy affects society. I was educated on it when I was 15 and I immediately realized that pro-life perspectives cause so much harm at the level of society that it doesn't make sense to be so narrowly focused on the fetus when society is at stake.
Full Episode:
Stephanie Gray | The Matt Fradd Show Ep. 9 - YouTube