Does the bodily rights argument for abortion really work?

There are varying views on this issue, and many philosophy papers have been written arguing for and against this position. Some people may simply reject the initial premise of Thomson (that is it permissible to unplug the violinist). Another common criticism of Thompson's position is to argue that the violinist and the seed analogy are not analogous for pregnancy and the consequent abortion. I think this is what your argument is trying to convey (it is in some ways arguing from responsibility. I think it is called the parental obligation objection). Boonin however replies to this by saying that while a mother is responsible for the fetus' existence, she is not responsible for her neediness (which is the relevant moral factor here). The way Boonin would respond to you analogy is that your actions resulted in your friend needing your kidney, while in the case of pregnancy, while the mother is responsible for the existence of the fetus, the fetus neediness (for resources etc) are not the responsibility of the mother, therefore there is no obligation to sustain her.

Personally, I think the problem here is our understanding of rights. We need to formulate an understanding of rights is consistent yet at the same time can explain our various moral intuitions. I take a sorta Kantian understanding of "rights" as moral "ought not" principles which should not be violated by any action of any agent (up to the point of marginal utility). In this view, failure to restore already violated rights is not wrong while violating an already intact one is. Furthermore, if an action restores a violated right at the cost of violating a right, then that action is wrong. For example. I have $20 and it is mine (right of property). If someone comes and takes this $20 they have violated my right of property and thus have acted wrongly. Now, in another case, someone has already had $20 stolen from them. I don't have a moral obligation (it is not wrong for me not to) to give $20 from my wallet to the victim. Rights thus are principles which morally we should not violate, but we are under no obligation to restore them. In this light, the bodily rights argument seems to fail.

/r/askphilosophy Thread