I am looking for the response of any denomination that is against abortion in the case of rape that has also responded to the scenario below or something similar to it.
"A Defense of Abortion" (Thomson):
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
It is said later that:
Critics of Thomson's argument generally grant the permissibility of unplugging the violinist, but seek to block the inference that abortion is permissible by arguing that there are morally relevant differences between the violinist scenario and typical cases of abortion.
But it is unsourced. :(
To make my intentions clear, the above is an analogy for a female being raped and impregnated by a male. Some denominations claim that the female is obliged to carry the child to birth if medically practical because the child is innocent of his/her father's sins, has a right to life, etc etc etc.
(Assume ideal conditions such as medical complications not being present so the mother and child are healthy, the mother can give birth, the mother and the father are not close relatives, a proper hospital is available and can be afforded, an adoption agency is available etc etc etc)
So do those arguments apply to the violinist too? What are the "morally relevant differences" ? I understand that Thomson was defending abortion in non-rape cases, but let us consider only rape cases.
What's the difference? Why are women responsible for carrying a child, who she did not consent to carrying, to birth but people are not responsible for caring for a violinist who they were attached to without consent?
I am not saying women are not responsible, but if they are, it looks like everyone is responsible for the violinist.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that I'm looking for any denomination's response, probable response based on teachings or relevant teachings. Naturally, I'm not asking what "Islam" thinks or would think.
Thanks to all. I'm new to site so please go easy on me in feedback and editing. :)