You can unplug yourself from a machine without touching the stranger (presumably), but abortion does not have that luxury; that is why these kind of hypothetical analogies can only go so far as a comparison for pregnancy. Ultimately, if the only way to end this hypothetical situation was to personally kill the stranger that you are hooked up to, then yes, I would consider that a valid and justified means of defending your autonomy that is being violated. Of course it is unfortunate that someone else had to put the stranger into that situation where neither of you had a say to begin with, but that still doesn't detract from your own right of bodily autonomy. Violating your consent is still violating your consent, regardless of who did it or why, and although the stranger is not guilty of putting themselves into that situation, they are still violating your consent.
In this hypothetical scenario, what is your alternative? Are you arguing that you must morally and legally allow this stranger to finish out this process that is actively using your body without your consent, simply because they did not put themselves there? Or is it the violence of, hypothetically, having to kill them that you are against? Because I would argue against both points. I would argue that your bodily autonomy is not limited by who "caused" the incident of the violation, as there is still inherently no way to violate someone innocently, whether you initiated it or not; additionally, violating someone's bodily consent is an inherently violent act, so using violence as a means of defending or stopping the violation is perfectly justified.
Be the first to reply to this disagreement.