What ethical question is Thomson raising with the violinist analogy?
[Quoted text of Thomson’s analogy under sources] Let me rephrase the analogy: “You wake up back-to-back in bed with a stranger. The bedfellow is a famous and extremely talented violinist (i.e. a potentially gifted violinist, now a baby in the womb). However, the violinist lacks a kidney and will not be able to obtain one for 9 months and thus will be connected to you via a tube until that time (i.e. the baby is unable to live outside the womb for 9 months). You have utter control over his or her life and the development thereof. Do you choose to exercise your “right to choose” (i.e. right to kill by omission) and let the violinist (baby) die or do you inconvenience yourself for 9 months to save a life? Thomson is asking whose right to life is more important, or rather, who should be allowed to choose whose life is more important.
