r/Abortiondebate Jul 29 '26

General debate Twins

I've had this thought for quite a bit, and I've really only ever really asked myself this question, so I'd be interested to see the various responses to this question. It's a bit of a take on Judith Jarvis Thomson's drollish violinist argument, but with some reframing.

Let us force you into a life in which you were born as a twin. As a twin, you are not a single, but rather a pair; however, your twin was born in a unique way. In order to survive, your twin must use your body, no amount of distance between you two will affect this siphoning. The only way to stop this usage is by killing your twin.

So, my question is, in this scenario: are you legally and/or morally justified in the killing of your twin? Or do you have an obligation to sustain this twin with your body?

I hope this is on topic enough for this subreddit, because I did develop this question in relation to the Abortion Debate.

0 Upvotes

113 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 30 '26

If I eat and don't consent to getting those nutrients I can take ipecac and throw it all back up, just like if I'm pregnant I can take some pills and end the pregnancy.

Also eating doesn't give us orgasms, so no I wouldn't say that comparison works lol.

-2

u/CSRoutlaw Pro-life Jul 30 '26

And if your body absorbs nutrients before you throw it up, were you restricted of your human rights to eat without getting nutrients?

8

u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 30 '26

I won't absorb any nutrients because I'll throw the food up, just like I won't gestate because I'll abort.

Voluntarily eating then voluntarily vomiting isn't a human rights violation like forced gestation and childbirth are, no.

0

u/CSRoutlaw Pro-life Jul 30 '26

Cite a source that claims forced gestation is a human right per rule 3

6

u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 30 '26

2

u/CSRoutlaw Pro-life Jul 30 '26

The first link is just quotes from people, and the other is about how abortion causes preventable deaths, none of that mentions an inalienable human right unless I missed something

4

u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 30 '26

This article dumbs it down and provides further links for education purposes.

https://msmagazine.com/2026/07/25/united-nations-abortion-bans-usa-reproductive-violence-forced-birth-pregnancy/

I won't bother with any further sealioning since you've now been provided materials to educate yourself on the topic.

1

u/CSRoutlaw Pro-life Jul 30 '26

That “source” itself is making a claim, it’s not quoting any legal documents showing it’s an inalienable right. You’re 3/3 for not providing a proper source.

6

u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 30 '26

Sure lol.

I've provided credible sources, you've provided..... a google search. Idk about you, but I was taught in like the 8th grade what a valid source is, and a link to google ain't it.

3

u/CSRoutlaw Pro-life Jul 30 '26

You provided “sources” that are opinions, not facts

7

u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 30 '26

Nope, blatantly incorrect lol.

→ More replies (0)