How do you counter the sleepwalking 🍇ist argument?
I debate on a daily basis against pro choice arguments but i’m getting stumped every time at the sleepwalking 🍇ist hypothetical. Basically the person brings up the scenario that a sleepwalking person is violating her body, but knows for a fact that it will not kill her, the only way to get him to stop is to use lethal force on the man. Is she justified in doing so or should she wait it out?
They use this to test the pro life argument that we should sometimes value human life over bodily autonomy and say it’s comparable to pregnancy in that:
(1) the person is innocent
(2) It’s a human
(3) the person is infringing on her right to bodily integrity
(4) she must use lethal force to stop the infringement
Is there any way to either point out flaws in this argument to make it incomparable or fix the original argument so that they can’t use this to counter it?