Is Thomson's analogy strong or weak? The main point of analogy based on Thompson's abortion article is the violinist scenario he uses. The violinist scenario is an example of abortion but from a different perspective. The author describes the scenario as a violinist who is connected to someone to help save them by drawing blood from the kidneys to fight the poison in the violinist's body because you both share the same blood type. This is the only method to save the violinist. The author then states that the only way to unplug is to unplug the violinist, which will kill him. Otherwise, you should only wait nine months until the violinist has fully recovered and you can safely be separated from him without any harm. Therefore, the solution to the argument the author tries to provide is that you have the same blood type to save the violinist, breaking away from him will kill him, so waiting nine months to fully heal the violinist is the right thing to do, and you can save his life. Returning to the article based on abortion, by analogy the author tries to make a comparison between the violinist scenario and abortion. Two things that are compared are the life of the mother and her fetus and that of the dying violinist who needs help. These two things are similar because both scenarios are faced with the difficulty of saving or taking a life. Furthermore, another similarity is that the violinist and the fetus are both entitled to the right to life, and their right to life should not be devalued. The only difference between the two scenarios is that the fetus does not have free speech because it is in the mother's stomach. The fetus cannot defend its life and is helpless. Ultimately the fetus cannot be... middle of paper... people united in marriage. Sex before marriage is not promoted and as stated earlier, to avoid unwanted pregnancies sex before marriage should be banned to reduce the number of abortions. Furthermore, the point is that the fetus did not give the mother its consent to end its life. In conclusion, Thomson's analogy is weak, out of context, irrelevant and hypocritical. If it's okay to kill a fetus that's still considered alive, then you might as well say it's okay to kill a three-year-old. Technically it's the same thing, the only difference is that one can talk, the other can't. It is also weak because who gave us the right to devalue someone else's right to life? Furthermore, if the mother has the right to her body and can do whatever she wants, the stranger also has the right not to help the dying violinist. Therefore, Thomson's argument is weak.