system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The violinist argument begs the question

Fwiw, I in no way want to take away access to abortion. I understand the motivations behind them, I think outlawing them would just create a back-alley scenario, and I'm only 50% sure fetuses are actually people, whereas pregnant people are unambiguously people. Still, I feel very uneasy with my current position and wish I could be unambiguously pro-choice with a clear conscience. I can never know in principle whether fetuses are people or not ("personhood" seems too big to ever get a clear and obvious definition), so the only way to get there is by saying that even if they *are* people, abortion is still okay. People often bring up the violinist argument for this.

I'm sorry, but I don't get it at all.

The general idea behind it is "if you were attached to someone and forced to let that person use your body for nine months because their life depended on it, wouldn't you want to unplug yourself and go free, in spite of their need?" And everyone else who hears the thought experiment - even pro-life people - seem to think that it would be morally licit to unplug the violinist. They treat it as self-evident. Is everyone crazy? A scenario where someone loses nine months of their life is obviously superior to a scenario where someone loses their existence altogether. While I wouldn't be happy if I were kidnapped and tied up to the violinist, I would understand the kidnapper's reasoning and while I don't know that the ends would justify the means, it would certainly be morally wrong of me to attempt to leave at that point. Maybe this is more of a defect in my personal psychology, but I just don't think that my autonomy is worth more than another person's existence. So an argument that's built on the assumption that autonomy *is* that important doesn't convince me, even though I actively *want* to be convinced. 

If you think "you're only saying this because you haven't actually been put in that situation," I concede that my animalistic impulse to escape might overcome my moral reasoning in that situation. But I wouldn't be morally *justified* in trying to escape. That's ludicrous.
gpt
> A scenario where someone loses nine months of their life is obviously superior to a scenario where someone loses their existence altogether. 

3,000 Americans die every year waiting for bone marrow donations. Fact is you are already complicit in their deaths whether you know it or not. Should people be forced to donate bone marrow?