Abortion is an extremely controversial political topic and has been hotly debated over the years. Since multiple parties – the mother and the fetus – stand to gain or lose significantly in each abortion decision, there is a large moral gray area; however, society could benefit from examining the issue philosophically. After all, philosophers often debate moral responsibility. In her argument “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thomson concludes that abortion is morally acceptable in almost all cases. To arrive at this conclusion, Thomson uses analogies with various cases of pregnancy and explains why abortion would be morally viable. Through the analogy of the violinist, Thomson explains why abortion in cases of rape is certainly an understandable solution. The violinist is terminally ill and his fans have determined that the only way to save his life is to connect him to the reader. By surviving on the player's functioning kidneys for nine months, the violinist can make a full recovery. In the storyline, however, fans did not ask the reader's permission; instead, they went ahead and connected the two together while the player slept. From the outset, the similarities between this scenario and a pregnancy following rape are obvious. For example, just as a raped woman had no choice in becoming pregnant, the reader also had no choice in being bound to the violinist. After nine months of attachment to the violinist, the reader is "free" and the violinist is healthy, just as a raped woman carries the child for nine months before giving birth. In the case of the violinist, however, Thomson argues that the reader is not forced to abandon his body simply because the fanatics have already hooked the two together against the reader's will. If the reader really doesn't want to give up their body for the violinist, they have no obligation to do so. On a similar wavelength, Thomson argues that a woman should not have to give up her body for nine months to foster the growth of an organism to which she never consented in the first place. Essentially, she argues that in both of these cases, it is important to note that the person being depended on had absolutely no say in whether or not they initially gave up their body for the sake of the other. Once this is established, it is extremely easy to say that there is no obligation to use one's body to help others. Although many (such as utilitarians, who believe in maximizing good or happiness for the greatest number) argue that a moral obligation lies in doing whatever is possible to ensure the survival of the fetus or violinist , many others (such as Thomson) can quite validly assert that moral responsibility does not include such personal sacrifices. Overall, the basis of Thomson's argument is certainly plausible, although the argument itself is not without consequences.