Where did the love go? Violinists are not babies

She then argues that no other class of persons are compelled to use their bodies in this way (if abortion were made illegal). That is not quite right. Firstly, as argued above, all people have a moral obligation not to take the life of innocent human beings, and mothers have a further obligation to preserve and protect their own children (just as fathers do).

Second, she seems to buy the personal autonomy argument to the max. She seems to think any obligation imposed upon us by another human being is a vexatious, burdensome and freedom-destroying shackle. In such a world of moral nihilism, no social obligation would be acceptable or possible. But the truth is, every day millions of people take on sacrificial obligations to others. Husbands to wives, wives to husbands, parents to children, and so on.

We all know that millions of sacrifices are made daily. Why? Because that is what love is all about. I may not feel like taking out the rubbish for a thousandth time. A mum may not feel like feeding the baby at 3am once again. A dad may not feel like helping his son get his homework done. These are all burdens which we bear, and bear gladly, for the sake of the beloved. But in the cold rationalistic world of Thompson, and perhaps Pringle, such considerations seem to hold no water.

That is what life and civilisation are all about. To view child-bearing as being "bodily conscripted to the state" is a bizarre way of describing the most natural, the most wonderful, and (dare we say it) the most sacred of human bonds.

Moreover, the same argument for autonomy and voluntary obligations could be made of children of any age. By the reasoning of these two women, if a woman feels chained to her three-year-old, and feels that her freedom is unduly restricted, taking the life of that parasite or trespasser would be appropriate.

Pringle ends her piece by hoping such considerations might help us all to think more carefully about "our moral duties to others, including unborn persons". I hope it does. But I am afraid that Pringle may have imbibed too freely of the spirit of the age, the spirit that knows of no social or moral obligations, other than to oneself, and that can only understand the carrying of one's own child as an unwanted burden and a nefarious obligation.