All that the person has failed to do is give up is his freedom for that things that may bring him happiness in order not to save his life. In this case the mother has no moral duty to stop her life goals and liberties in order to keep providing for the child. With this Thomson shows a strong libertarian approach to her arguments in demonstrating abortion as morally permissible. .
Thomson's sick violinist example challenges Noonan's pro-life argument to show that her analogy applies to abortion based on specific moral values. A challenge that Thomson presents to the pro-life argument is the general moral values of liberty and avoiding misery. Thomson takes on the case of abortion with a strong libertarian point of view. The only responsibilities that the other person has is to not to interfere with one's liberty. There is no obligation to provide goods and services. Even if the fetus is a person it does not mean that the mother has a moral duty to support the child. It challenges Noonan's idea that we do have moral duty to provide goods and services to others. (Noonan, CC 09). Avoiding misery is another challenge to Noonan's pro-life position. If the mother chooses to not go through pregnancy is for reasons of avoiding misery. Going through the pregnancy may cause misery upon the mother, maybe the mother did not plan on having a child. Therefore having a child may stop the mother from pursuing her lifetime goals in order to care for the child. Surely that's against moral values of avoiding misery.
.
Part B.
Noonan addresses several moral arguments concerning abortion in his paper How to Argue About Abortion. His arguments and methods are interesting but throughout his explanations he critics Thomson analogical argument and shows how her argument does not apply to abortion. One of the ways he approaches abortion is through his method of perception. Noonan challenges Thomson's sick violinist example saying that it is an artificial case.