Objection to Jarvis-Thomson #2: Unlike in the violinist example, the woman is responsible for her pregnancy.

It was her choosing to have sex that made the baby

Jarvis-Thomson points out that at the very least this argument permits abortion in cases of rape. It also acknowledges that in certain circumstances, it is legitimate to compromise the right to life, even though a rape-produced fetus is as innocent as one produced by consensual sex. Once you have acknowledged that the right to life is not absolute, you can no longer automatically dismiss her other arguments. Jarvis-Thomson also has a fanciful thought experiment about “people-seeds” accidentally drifting in through locked and barred windows, to show that we should not be responsible for accidents against which we have taken reasonable precautions. Here is a thought experiment of mine that makes the same point about real life situations.

Everyone knows that driving is risky. The chance of getting into an automobile accident when driving is probably greater than the chances of getting pregnant while using properly functioning contraceptives. So if somebody gets into an automobile accident, does that mean that they should be held accountable for that, and thus we should forbid doctors from giving them medical treatment?

Note that if we used this reasoning, it wouldn’t be enough to refuse to pay for the medical treatment. You would have to actually make it illegal for doctors to treat them. After all…