Normally I enjoy Cecil Adams' "Straight Dope" column for my daily dose of weird facts. But this leaves a nasty taste in my mouth:
"When does human life begin?" (revisited)
Not content with having opened this can of worms in the first place, Adams decides to totally dismiss a woman's response to his original column.
While I'm sure you're a splendid human being in person, in your letter you come across as a self-centered ninny, and you make the kinds of arguments that drive the religious right to new heights of zeal.
Talk about victim blaming. And:
So lay off with the yammering about how I'm a misogynist. I'm trying to help you out.
Riiiiiiight.
It's one thing to be pro-life. It's another to be a complete condescending asshole. And yes, I realize that condescending is part of Adams' shtick, but it works a lot better when you're dispensing facts, not opinions.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "Dope" being the operative word.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10660
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Are you honestly oblivious to the fact that Feministing bloggers are consistently condescending assholes to Pro-Life people? Or do you feel it's okay in your case because you view an unborn baby's lack intrinsic value or right not to be killed as a fact, not an opinion? You express your opinion on your website, and he expresses his on his.
His response to the letter he recieved was very condescending as well though. Is he allowed to speak in such a tone that looks down upon a certain group of people and we are not? I'm not saying that people on feministing should become "condescending" as well, but his article was extremly hurtful, rude and ignorant and I don't think it's wrong for mhari to share her discomfort with it.
Anyways, his argument was rather flawed imo. It seems as though he knows what's best from what's been done for the past century. It wasn't really nice to read as someone who's sick of being looked down upon by people who think they know best for me. (I'm sooo sick of prolife propaganda.)
Did you catch the "Silly male monkey, tricks are for kids" part of the letter he so condescendingly responded to? As for becoming condescending . . . would you say many Feministing posts are written with respect for opposing views of any magnitude?
When the opposing views are reasonable, there is definitely respect here. Posters here get angry when they're met with irrationality or hatred, and perhaps there is condescension when met with utter stupidity or willful ignorance, but it's pretty rare, and never towards someone reasonable.
The problem is, Lifers are rarely reasonable. 90% of the time, they victim blame, slut-shame, turn pregnancy into a punishment, have their facts wrong, or simply fail to appreciate the kind of damage criminalizing abortion would do. It's really hard to go treat those kinds of beliefs with any respect--just because someone holds a belief doesn't mean it's good or respectable.
The problem the OP probably has is her/his belief that keeping abortion legal doesn't do any harm, so getting condescending about it is obnoxious. It's easy to get mad when people want to institute a law that would make women suffer personally. It's harder to accept that the other side would get mad about an opposing viewpoint that doesn't personally affect them at all.
So you would be respectful, if only we deserved any respect.
I think that's a pretty lousy way to treat a whole class of people, but applied to the specific case of the person SD was writing to, who made such brilliant arguments as "Silly male monkey, tricks are for kids." That writer deserved a thoughtful, respectful reply, but sneering and throwing feces is the only rational way to address people who think an unborn baby is alive and deserves some degree of protection?
Protection from whom? Oh, right. Women who have the audacity to not want to be pregnant anymore. Shame on them for wanting to control their own bodies!
Did I say shame on anyone? I fully acknowledge the legitimacy of the pro-choice position. My parents, most of my friends, and nearly all the politicians I've helped elect are pro-choice. I guess the constant smirk and strawmen protect you from having to ever acknowledge that it's a morally complicated issue and that the opposing view point might have some validity, even if you don't want it to prevail.
You don't have to say "shame on [whatever]" to shame anyone. It's implied by what you say.
And if by "strawmen" you mean "people who actually exist," then I agree. If there's anyone who recognizes that what to do with an unintended, unwanted, or unhealthy pregnancy is a morally complicated issue, it's pro-choicers. That's why we'd much rather the decision be left open to each pregnant woman than to politicians.
So you ignore everything I've actually said and claimed I'm too vile to be worthy of respect because of what's implied by what (unspecified things) I say.
And strawmen also doesn't mean what you think it means.
Pro-choicers don't believe that zygotes, embryos, or fetuses are without intrinsic value or have no right not to be aborted. What pro-choicers believe is that such value and right is given to them by, you know, the women carrying them. Have you ever heard of women? They're people with brains, lives, and aspirations who are oppressed simply for having the equipment to give birth. I will go as far to say that pro-lifers believe that zygotes, embryos, or fetuses have no intrinsic value or rights. In the minds of pro-lifers, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses only have political value and are only used to keep women in the private sphere, shut away from the outside world of work and education. There is not a single pro-life argument that is not anti-woman, as women are either treated as baby-making slaves, whores, idiots, or social deviants for even entertaining the thought that they are individuals who want their own lives, if women are even mentioned at all. Scratch a pro-lifer hard enough, and you'll find yourself a misogynist. And if you don't like that, prove me wrong.
Intrinsic doesn't mean what you think it means.
And since I gave a quarter of the last year as an Obama staffer and over a thousand dollars of my pathetic income towards electing him and other Democrats this election, I'm not sure what "political value" I'm supposed to derive from this. I certainly don't want to exclude women from work or education, I don't even know how to respond to that accusation. I can't prove I'm not a Martian either.
Yes, I've heard of women.
I think that life needs to be respected and protected, and that there's no distinct point other than conception at which you can draw a line between "entitled to live" and "not entitled to live." I think that throughout human history, we have erred in drawing the circle around who qualifies as fully human too narrowly, excluding women, homosexuals, disabled people, children, and people in oppressed social or economic classes, races and religions. In deciding whether unborn babies have an intrinsic right to live, in the absence of a live/not-alive marker other than conception, I think it's right to lean towards inclusion rather than exclusion. How does that make me "anti-woman"?
Unfortunately for the fetus someone's right to live does not give them the right to use someone else's body to do so. That's where I draw the line.
Exactly. Even if a zygote, embryo, or fetus is undeniably a person (which it's not, and the personhood argument is irrelevant anyway), that doesn't give them the right to live inside a person against their will. Absolutely nothing, person or not, can use a person's body or property against without their permission.
unfunny feminist, your comment was actually very funny. i agree with it, but this is the first time i've seen the argument put forth in this way. the fetus is a tenant and the pregnant woman the landlady :)
I completely respect that position, although I disagree because I think the right not to be killed supersedes that right.
I understand why my position isn't popular here, but I'm still vague on why it's "anti-woman" or what my great political stake is in this.
So you're saying that one persons right to live gives them the right to use someone else's body to sustain their life. How far are you willing to take that belief?
If you really truly believe that then logically it would extend beyond fetus-woman dependencies. Blood transfusions, bone marrow transplants, kidney transplants - anyone who would die without it could demand those things of you and you would be forced to provide them.
Most people who believe that a woman should be forced to allow a fetus to use her body against her will do not apply this level of obligation to anyone other than pregnant women. And that is what makes this belief anti-woman.
That is a good point. I would say that there is a difference between passively declining to donate a kidney to someone who needs it and actively having a doctor kill the baby. I would also say that we do have obligations to those who need help, and that a lot of obligations go unmet, which is a bad thing. I give blood regularly, and my driver's license says to chop my body up for spare parts to donate to those in need if I die. Obviously both of these are lesser burdens than either unwanted pregnancy or donating an organ while alive.
"I think the right not to be killed supersedes that right."
Is this some argument you came up with, or is there e.g., some Supreme Court decision recognizing or upholding the legal rights of the unborn?
"I'm still vague on why it's 'anti-woman'"
Allowing rights to the unborn, or considering their lives as important as those of people already born (e.g. pregnant women), can result in an adversarial relationship between fetus and pregnant women. For example, many people see no problem with judging pregnant women who smoke, calling it and them e.g., abusive. So where does it end? Will a pregnant woman be accused of or prosecuted for abuse, because she does not seek regular prenatal care? Or because she doesn't buy and take dietary supplements? Or she doesn't sign up for aquacize? Or she doesn't maintain a certain weight? Or she got pregnant despite she or her partner carrying a risk of passing on a medical condition?
Or being pregnant while poor? Already, I see a lot of hostility on this blog against those who would dare to have children without being able to provide a certain, modern American level standard of living.
"Is this some argument you came up with, or is there e.g., some Supreme Court decision recognizing or upholding the legal rights of the unborn?"
It's my view, obviously. The Supreme Court is a legal tribunal, not a moral guiding light. The Court after all cursed us with Dred Scott, Plessy and Bowers before blessing us with Brown, Loving and Lawrence.
And people aren't prosecuted for smoking around their children, unfortunately.
"It's my view, obviously."
Then it unfortunately means nothing unless it catches on. I am for abortion on demand, as well as legalized suicide, assisted suicide, and euthanasia, and am a supporter of capital punishment, and licensed concealed carry of weapons.
"And people aren't prosecuted for smoking around their children, unfortunately."
I refer to women smoking while pregnant being viewed as abusive. The rights of those already born should be recognized.
""It's my view, obviously."
Then it unfortunately means nothing unless it catches on."
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but opposition to abortion is a fairly widespread position. It has "caught on." That obviously doesn't make it right or wrong, but again I don't understand what you're trying to say.
"I refer to women smoking while pregnant being viewed as abusive. The rights of those already born should be recognized."
That view unfortunately means nothing unless it catches on.
"I'm not sure what you mean by that, but opposition to abortion is a fairly widespread position. It has 'caught on.'"
Greater than those who approve of abortion? They've put the issue on a ballot? There is a majority in the US Supreme Court who will reverse Roe v. Wade? Until then, opposition to legal abortion is nothing more than a hinderance to those who exercise a legally recognized right, and terrorism in extreme cases.
"'I refer to women smoking while pregnant being viewed as abusive. The rights of those already born should be recognized.'"
"That view unfortunately means nothing unless it catches on."
The rights of those already born has already caught on, and been legally recognized. It is one reason abortion is legal. It is your extreme position that parents should be arrested simply for smoking around children (Why not siblings and uncles or aunts? Why not strangers in public?) that has not caught on. Why not also arrest every parent who takes their child to a fast food restaurant, or buys them a video game instead of playing with them outside an hour a day? Why not arrest every parent who knowingly reproduces with a quantifiable risk factor of hereditary disorders? Why not arrest every parent who is judged too poor to give their child the standard of life they deserve?
""I'm not sure what you mean by that, but opposition to abortion is a fairly widespread position. It has 'caught on.'"
Greater than those who approve of abortion? They've put the issue on a ballot? There is a majority in the US Supreme Court who will reverse Roe v. Wade? Until then, opposition to legal abortion is nothing more than a hinderance to those who exercise a legally recognized right, and terrorism in extreme cases."
"fairly widespread" does not mean "majority opinion". The muddy middle majority in the country seems to favor legalized abortion with some restrictions. The majority is also against gay marriage and was for invading Iraq. The majority does not determine my view, which is what I was discussing.
"The rights of those already born has already caught on, and been legally recognized. It is one reason abortion is legal. It is your extreme position that parents should be arrested simply for smoking around children (Why not siblings and uncles or aunts? Why not strangers in public?) that has not caught on. Why not also arrest every parent who takes their child to a fast food restaurant, or buys them a video game instead of playing with them outside an hour a day? Why not arrest every parent who knowingly reproduces with a quantifiable risk factor of hereditary disorders? Why not arrest every parent who is judged too poor to give their child the standard of life they deserve?"
If you don't stop making stuff up I'm going to stop taking you seriously. You CAN make up a position I don't hold and then use it as the beginning of an irrational slippery slope argument leading to other, more bizarre positions I also don't hold. But must you?
"I'm going to stop taking you seriously."
Go ahead. And I am quite serious when asking you where you will stop having people arrested for behavior YOU find objectionable, with little or no legal backing.
So how will you punish women who have abortions, being killers or committing conspiracy to commit murder and all? Should near half of adult women be in jail for life?
Wow, I'm so done with Cecil Adams column. Glad they don't run it anymore here.
And I for one freely admit I have no problem being condescending and hostile towards anti-choicers, because I have no respect for them. But so what, they have no respect for me (or anyone else who's a woman.)
Aleks I think your position could be a little more refined. I agree with you that there is a spectrum of moral obligations that depends on different factors. But the obligations of a woman to a embryo too small to see that is the product of rape, for the existence of which she has no moral accountability, has to be different than a woman who has frequent unprotected sex, and forgoes an abortion until the second trimester. I can understand making an argument for the latter's moral imperative to finish the pregnancy, but not so much the former.
Do you account for any different circumstances? Or are you simply opposed to all abortions in all cases because every fertilized cell is a "potential" human? If the latter, how potential does an object need to be? Is there some percentage chance that it will be a human being at some point that is important? And why is simple possibility important at all?
Also, when you decide to lean in favor of inclusion of fetus's as human's on this issue, it makes you anti-woman because you are choosing to prefer a potential right to life instead of an absolute right to a woman's control of her body.
"Do you account for any different circumstances?"
I don't, other than when the life of the mother absolutely requires it. I wish I did, because if I could make an exception for the really tragic cases my position would sound sound and feel much nobler, even though it would be abandoning the point that I think gives it validity at all, respect for life. I don't view the pregnancy as a punishment for unprotected sex, and a woman who gets pregnant by being careless has the same right to control her body that a rape victim does (obviously the rape victim deserves more sympathy because the situation was truly out of her control). If I didn't think the baby had an absolute right to not be killed, I would be against any restrictions whatsoever on abortion, and wouldn't care if it were used "as birth control," however valid or invalid that phrase may be. I'm not anti-woman, I'm not anti-sex, I'm not pro-procreation. I'm pro-life, because I think killing any human being is wrong. I realize that "the rape victim has an obligation to the product of the rape" is a ghastly, horrible position, and it makes me sick to say it. It's not an easy decision, and I respect everyone (including most of the people I know) who come to the opposite conclusion. But I can't accept that the right to not be killed is subservient to other rights, however weighty. The right to freedom, which I must admit is reduced by the unavailability of abortion, is one of the highest, but not higher than the right to live.
When abortion occurs, it is a societal rather than personal moral failure. A failure of educators, medical providers, those (often nominally pro-life) who should provide aid and comfort to mothers-in-need and children, and the entire moral climate that says we don't need to take care of people in peril. Despite all the nasty claims that I'm "slut-shaming" and "victim-blaming" I think that the woman who is unwillingly pregnant is probably the least culpable when the tragedy of abortion occurs, because more is being asked of her than of all the other broken links in the chain.
This, just to be clear, is my moral view of abortion. I don't claim that it would translate perfectly into laws, which should be based on pragmatism. I believe Obama is serious about his commitment to making abortion safe and rare. But if I had a daughter, I would teach her that if she got pregnant the baby's life was valuable, and that I'd do everything to help her. And perhaps she'd reject my views, as I have my parents' pro-choice position. In the end it can't help being a choice. But it's a choice that I believe has a right decision and a wrong decision, and I wish people would be taught to make the right choice and that society would assist rather than punish choosing life by treating single mothers badly.
If you think that killing a fetus is morally worse than allowing it to commandeer a woman's body then it certainly doesn't make you sick for saying so. I'm an ethical nihilist so this is all ultimately opinion as far as I'm concerned.
I think this is the problem.
Patrick Henry and the state motto of New Hampshire well display the American sentiment on this issue.
Even so, I'm not conceding that killing a fetus is morally wrong. I think that persons are important, human tissue is not. You'll probably go through the standard potential person argument, but I guess I'll just wait for you: why is human life inherently important?
He sounds like one of "those men"... a little frightened of what they don't know, or don't have, or can't control, so they have to have an immediate opinion.
I wonder if he's also pro-right-to-bear-arms?
Anyway, no one told him he had to have an abortion, so I don't know what he's getting his knickers in a twist about.
Personally, I really think people need to enter the 21st century. And the quoting of Roe v. Wade? Give me a break. My favorite part was when he said he was quoting Roe v. Wade because he agreed with the fact that it states women are not in total control of the termination of their pregnancies... but brushed off another part of Roe v. Wade - the part where the state decides if abortion is illegal or not - because it was illegitimate to his argument. He must think his readers are some kind of stupid.
"I wonder if he's also pro-right-to-bear-arms?"
And what is wrong with this opinion, or why does it come up in a discussion of anti-woman or anti-abortion views? The Supreme Court recognizes the Constitutional right to bear arms, even in a high crime community like Washington DC where guns are also used by criminals regardless of laws against them. Why not allow law abiding citizens a better chance against criminals, or the option of having firearms for collection or sport?
"Anyway, no one told him he had to have an abortion, so I don't know what he's getting his knickers in a twist about."
I am in support of abortion on demand, but I have no problem seeing that anti-abortionists consider abortions to be killing or murder. Even Planned Parenthood uses the term "fetal demise," as in "In later second-trimester procedures, you may also need a shot through your abdomen to make sure there is fetal demise before the procedure begins."
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/abortion-procedures-4359.htm
Why the euphemisms or omissions of mention of the embryo or fetus elsewhere? It is death, or prevention of birth. The issue is not supposed to be about viability or when life begins, it's about the pregnant woman's rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has gone even further to recognize the rights of those already born.
"If I didn't think the baby had an absolute right to not be killed, I would be against any restrictions whatsoever on abortion, and wouldn't care if it were used "as birth control," however valid or invalid that phrase may be."
Do you know which embryos or fetuses would have lived, had they not been aborted? No? Then how can you talk about babies being killed? How can you talk about abortion being a societal failure, instead of first degree murder, and demanding each be treated accordingly?
Last week, I came across the view that God is the greatest abortionist of all time. There is validity to that view, if one accepts God as being responsible for pregnancy and miscarriage. But I see no organized protest or action against it.
Do I know who's going to die in the next week? No, and yet I STILL don't go around shooting people. Go figure.
That's a poor argument. People aren't killing fetuses or removing them from the womb for fun. It's a legal medical procedure. It's also legal to kill the living (as in separation of parasitic conjoined twins) in a medical context. Those who do so illegally, or cause harm to a fetus while assaulting the mother, are breaking the law.
It's a fine argument. You sort of mixed up your points by asking if he knew which fetus's would have lived anyway. That couldn't be relevant because we're talking about people taking action, not all possibilities.
I'm not sure why you're so stuck on equating legality with morality. They're vastly different.
Your argument about first degree murder is more on track and I'd be interested to see Aleks's thoughts on that. If every life has the same inherent value, why shouldn't abortion be punished just as stringently as murder?
"It's a fine argument. You sort of mixed up your points by asking if he knew which fetus's would have lived anyway. That couldn't be relevant because we're talking about people taking action, not all possibilities."
How is mention of shooting people in the street because I feel like it, relevant to a licensed physician performing abortions at the request of and with the consent of a patient? (Parents usually give consent for medical treatment on behalf of even live, born children, even if that treatment will knowingly or deliberately result in end of life, as in separation of a parasitic or weakened, conjoined twin.) Are doctors who perform abortions being accused of finding some sort of enjoyment in it, like a serial killer?
Anti-choicers talk about the "preborn" because they can make use of hindsight, i.e., I was once a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus, as was Beethoven, and King David of the Old Testament. Yes, *GOD* could know David before he was born, because the biblical God knows the future. But one cannot be certain that each product of conception will turn out to be a live birth, even after being born, in some cases.
Had my mother not miscarried her second pregnancy (a fingernail sized piece of tissue she discovered on the toilet seat) I would never have been born, because her plan was two kids. I had no reaction to this revelation as a young child, and I have none now. If I had not been conceived, or if I had not been born, I would not be here to talk about it, regret or resent it. And there is nothing I would have been able to do about it anyway.
There has been some discussion in a recent thread of when PERSONhood is determined, as opposed to when humanity is determined, because yes, they are human cells, or a forming human. At least one poster has ventured that even recently born babies are not yet "people." Post birth babies have some rights, but I can see the validity in that argument.
There has been some debate about the ethics of cloning humans for organ transplant. See for example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/10/20/nclo20.html
http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/97ire/_Morally_Regressive__Brits_Clone_Headless_Frogs
Naturally, many find the idea repulsive. There are nations with bans on human cloning, or indeed, any research on what some consider potential humans.
I find the idea (as I did back then) novel. If embryos or fetuses are used, or if a body is formed without a head, is it "really" an individual, with rights? Even without consciousness or a brain?
"I'm not sure why you're so stuck on equating legality with morality. They're vastly different."
I am not. Far from it. I'd feel perfectly justified in committing certain highly illegal acts, like taking revenge on the people who abused my wife whom I am able to identify. I do not, because it is not worth decades of living on death row in Japan. In any case, my wife has no interest in seeking legal redress, and the statute of limitations is short in Japan.
However, law (such as Roe v. Wade) is something which has already been decided by an allegedly impartial body (or decided by one's "peers"), and that decision carries authority, even if it not something all can agree with on moral or other grounds. Anti-choicers should respect the law to allow individuals to have abortions, and NOT commit murder or other acts of terror. Those not able to tolerate living under existing laws or seeking to create new ones, on moral or other grounds, should seek relief in an appropriate manner.
Speaking of the morals of medical procedures which deliberately cause death, by the way, here is the story of one prominent pro-lifer, later Surgeon General of the United States; an actively religious man, who himself made the decision to take the life of a living child:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3798/is_/ai_n8932087
"To him the morals of the situation were obvious. God had already made the choice that only one could live by bringing twins with a single heart into the world; Koop's job was to ensure that the one who could live, did live."
In fact, there was another obvious choice: perhaps God, in providing one insufficient heart to two conjoined children, had intended for BOTH to die. One could argue it was more moral to allow two children to die in peace, than to deliberately choose and kill one.
Point being, even a pro-lifer needs some flexibility. In fact, as a physician, Koop has probably routinely triaged his pediatric patients, allocating his skills and limited resources to those he judged could live, or were worth helping or saving, while limiting or declining care for others.
That last example with the twins works because of the doctrine of double effect, as do rare examples of what amount to abortion because of other complications, but are considered morally permissible even by the very conservative.
I was earlier talking about where you said this.
I think Aleks interpreted this the way I did, and equated it with just killing people because you don't know who's going to die anyway. I said that was a fine counter argument because I thought you were suggesting that since any fetus might just die anyway, aborting them is fine.
Now I think you were suggesting that since you don't know which ones would become persons, you can't worry about the persons they will become. I don't think that helps with Aleks, because she thinks that fetus's and embryos are persons to begin with, that have inherent moral rights regardless of the people they will become.
"I think Aleks interpreted this the way I did, and equated it with just killing people because you don't know who's going to die anyway. I said that was a fine counter argument because I thought you were suggesting that since any fetus might just die anyway, aborting them is fine."
Not knowing which fetuses will be born (spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage within the first 20 weeks of gestation, is said to occur in up to 25% of pregnancies, and I've read higher), is one more reason abortion is not murder. There is reasonable doubt. Even if someone deliberately murdered a stranger, but then eliminated any physical evidence to tie themselves to it, it would be very difficult to convict them of the crime, despite killing an already born person. People don't get convicted on criminal offenses, if jurors are only 75% sure.
If each and every product of conception from fertilization of egg, were 100% assured to become live births, and abortion the ONLY obstacle to birth, then pro-choicers would be in some serious trouble. (This is not expected to occur.)
"I would say that there is a difference between passively declining to donate a kidney to someone who needs it and actively having a doctor kill the baby.
I think hinging things on the active/passive nature of your refusal is dodging the issue: in either scenario someone dies as a direct result of your decision. But in any case, the real issue isn't whether or not you're morally responsible for a death if you refuse to donate a kidney, its whether the person who needs a kidney should have the legal right to take yours without your permission, endangering your health and life in the process.
That is a strong argument, but I don't think the analogy holds. The baby isn't cutting an organ out of your body. Refusing to donate a kidney to someone, morally problematic though it is, isn't the same as undergoing a procedure specifically to kill him or her.
You're worrying about the details when the core issue is whether someone should legally be able use your body without your permission to preserve their own life. (and sure the baby isn't cutting an organ out of your body, but that's because it's IN your body instead, which is arguably more invasive)
Whether you're undergoing a procedure to prevent someone from using your body (thus killing them) or preventing someone from using your body by refusing a procedure (thus killing them) are just technicalities. And again, we're not really talking about you "donating" a kidney, we're talking about the proposed commandeering of your kidney.
Dammit now you've got me using the word baby instead of fetus. Eesh. Inaccurate language for the lose.
Just use the violinist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_(thought_experiment)
I immediately realized that unlike with a child, the subject has no legal or financial obligations to the violinist, and unlike with planned pregnancies or consensual acts of unprotected sex while knowing the risks, the subject has no ability to consent (as in pregnancy through rape, as mentioned in the article).
Also, I personally get no warm and fuzzy feelings, even imagining saving some famous musician. (Neither would I kidnap and imprison someone to coerce them into donating or "lending" live saving organs for my wife or children.) On the other hand, some may be willing to save a child of their own blood, or to allow one to be born, even at great expense to themselves, just like a woman with an unexpected or unplanned pregnancy, who does decide to carry the pregnancy to term.