Objection to Jarvis-Thomson #1: This situation is so weird that it tell us nothing about how people should react in real life situations

The argument doesn’t have to be that weird

Here’s a real life situation for you: There are thousands of people out there who need kidneys, and will die because they can’t get them. And yet you, you bastard, are walking around with two kidneys, even though you could survive with only one. You might be a bit inconvenienced by the operation, and by the fact that your health would be somewhat compromised. But that wouldn’t be as inconvenient or risky as a nine-month pregnancy, and 18 years (minimum) of raising the child. So how can you justify keeping that extra kidney? I justify it by saying it is my kidney, in my body, and no one else has a right to force me to give it to someone else. Of course, the person who needs my kidney does have a right to life. But as Jarvis Thomson points out “having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body-even if one needs it for life itself.” (p.56)” Kate Bracy points out that there already is case law supporting this position.

“(The seminal case in this matter was McFall v. Shimp [1978]). In that case, a man refused to give bone marrow to his dying cousin, a viable human. And cousin would DIE without the marrow. A Pennsylvania court ruled that Mr. Shimp did not have to part with his bone marrow, even…