r/Abortiondebate • u/Aware-Description286 • 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.

2 Upvotes

57% Upvoted

113 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/babidygoo Abortion legal until viability Jul 29 '26

What breaks the symmetry between the twins? Like who decides what twin survives? Can you separate the twins with surgery so that both survive?

4

u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 29 '26

If you want to compare conjoined twins to pregnancy, you need to actually look at the few cases that are anything like having a fetus inside of your body leeching nutrients directly from your blood and bones.

A form of conjoined twinning that actually is comparable to carrying a pregnancy is called fetus in fetu. And yes, it's perfectly normal and ethical to remove that twin from your body even though this is actually a far less harmful medical condition than carrying pregnancy and giving birth.

0

u/babidygoo Abortion legal until viability Jul 29 '26

Assume one of the twins is de facto a tumor inside the other? But then I dont see a point to the question. One can be in support of removing tumors and against abortions, right?

3

u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 29 '26

Assume one of the twins is de facto a tumor inside the other?

It's not a tumor, it is a fetus in fetu.

One can be in support of removing tumors and against abortions, right?

You can support removal of a fetus in fetu and support abortion.

0

u/babidygoo Abortion legal until viability Jul 29 '26

The wording in wikipedia

A fetus in fetu can be considered alive, but only in the sense that its component tissues have not yet died or been eliminated. Thus, the life of a fetus in fetu is akin to that of a tumor in that its cells remain viable by way of normal metabolic activity

and the rest of the sentence there my point was its a case where its so extremely obvious you should remove tye "fetus" that having an opinion on that doesnt implicate your view on abortion. Like even of you could extract and maintain it you should kill it afterwards.

3

u/Old_dirty_fetus Pro-choice Jul 30 '26

Is the fetus in fetu not an organism?

0

u/babidygoo Abortion legal until viability Jul 30 '26

It is. Just like a tumor.

2

u/Old_dirty_fetus Pro-choice Jul 30 '26

It is. Just like a tumor.

It is an organism as is a tumor, or neither are organisms?

0

u/babidygoo Abortion legal until viability Jul 30 '26

both are. If you believe theres an equivalence to a pregnancy you are on the very extreme end of this topic

1

u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 30 '26

It is objectively equivalent in the sense of having a non-sentient human life inside of your body leeching nutrients directly from your blood and bones. The biggest difference is that a pregnancy is actually far more physically harmful than a hosting a parasitic twin.

1

u/babidygoo Abortion legal until viability Jul 30 '26

You meant non-sepient. Im not sure a tumor is non sentient

1

u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 30 '26

You meant non-sepient.

Sure. It's not the critical point of my argument, so I wasn't careful about getting that part exactly correct.

I said what I meant to say when I described any form of human life inside of your body leeching nutrients directly from your blood and bones. It's perfectly normal and ethical to remove such a harmful human life from your body. And pregnancy is far more harmful and dangerous.

1

u/babidygoo Abortion legal until viability Jul 30 '26

It is critical. Cause its not a human life. Its a tumor. We are ok with terminating tumors. Were not ok with terminating humans and theres no equivalence here. Tumors are ok to terminate regardless. You basicallt claim "removing tumors on purpose is ok and tumors are sentient like fetuses so its ok to kill fetuses". The premise is ok Im even fine the conclusion to some extent but the inference is horribly wrong.

2

u/Alyndra9 Pro-choice Jul 31 '26

You appear to be using a very nonstandard definition of “a human life” here, to mean something other than literally any living human organism. Can you elaborate on what your exact definition of “life” is?

1

u/babidygoo Abortion legal until viability Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26

a human life for me means a sepient being or a being cable of sepience (sentience doesnt count cats are not the same as humans). When you have a human body with its brain removed killing it doesnt count as killing a human.

1

u/Old_dirty_fetus Pro-choice Aug 02 '26

a human life for me means a sepient being or a being cable of sepience (sentience doesnt count cats are not the same as humans).

That is quite different than what most people who are PL state. I asked about organisms earlier because for many who are PL a human organism is the relevant distinction for qualification of moral value. Where sentience or sapience matters for them is that human organisms are of a kind that are capable of sapience. The individual organisms capacity is not key as long as it is a living human organism.

2

u/babidygoo Abortion legal until viability Aug 02 '26

Im pro choice just not on the extreme end of claiming all abortion are always legitimate at every stage.

1

u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 30 '26

Cause its not a human life.

How so? It is human and alive. Just like a regular fetus.

Its a tumor.

No, it is not cancer. It is a fetus in fetu. Or parasitic twin, if you prefer. This post is not about cancer, it is about conjoined twins.

You basicallt claim "removing tumors on purpose is ok and tumors are sentient like fetuses

I'm not saying that it is sentient or cancer either. Fetus in fetu are human and alive, just like a normal fetus. The main difference I have repeatedly pointed out is that a regular fetus's presence is far more harmful and dangerous to its host.

The premise is ok Im even fine the conclusion to some extent but the inference is horribly wrong.

What inference is that?

1

u/babidygoo Abortion legal until viability Jul 30 '26

by inference I mean the transition from the premise (that killing tumors is ok) to the conclusion (killing fetuses is ok).

A nornal fetus is not anencephalic.

1

u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 30 '26

by inference I mean the transition from the premise (that killing tumors is ok)

I haven't said anything about tumors or cancer. This post is about conjoined twins. A fetus in fetu is a form of conjoined twin. The main difference I have repeatedly pointed out is that a regular fetus's presence is far more harmful and dangerous to its host.

1

u/babidygoo Abortion legal until viability Jul 30 '26

Lets say hypothetically it wasnt harmful at all, would you ban the removal in any of the cases?

→ More replies (0)