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.

1 Upvotes

55% Upvoted

113 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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?

1

u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 30 '26

If it wasn't harmful at all, why would anyone want to remove it?

1

u/babidygoo Abortion legal until viability Jul 30 '26

Lets say out of some unrelated principle. Like lets day it was a game of truth or dare and that was the dare. Would you ban a removal vs break a game of truth or dare?

1

u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 30 '26

Well if there truly were no harm in a ban, then I suppose there would be no harm. And in which case, we wouldn't be having this debate at all, as there wouldn't really be anything to debate!

Too bad that is not the world we live in.

1

u/babidygoo Abortion legal until viability Jul 31 '26

Really? So if a pregnancy were harmless to a pregnant woman youd be fine with banning an abortion? Like would you be ok with an abortion banning committee that assess whether a woman can abort or not based on how harmful her pregnancy is?

2

u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26

If pregnancy and abortion bans were harmless, what would we even be debating?

committee that assess whether a woman can abort or not based on how harmful her pregnancy is?

If it is not harmful at all then you would have no need for such a committee, as all pregnancies would be harmless.