Assignment Task: Consider the following example offered by John Martin Fischer:
Suppose you have planned for many years to take a trip to a very remote place in the Himalaya Mountains. You have secured a cabin in an extremely remote and inaccessible place in the mountains. You wish to be alone; you have enough supplies for yourself, and also have some extras in case of an emergency. Unfortunately, a very evil man has kidnapped an innocent person and brought him to die in the desolate mountain country near your cabin. The innocent person wanders for hours and finally finds your cabin...You can radio for help, but because of the remoteness and inaccessibility of your cabin and the relatively primitive technology of the country in which it is located, the rescue part will require nine months to reach your cabin. Thus, you are faced with a choice. You can let the innocent stranger into your cabin and provide food and shelter until the rescue part arrives in nine months, or you can forcibly prevent him from entering your cabin (or staying there) and thus cause his death. It is evident that he will die unless you allow him to stay in the cabin.
Fischer argues that it seems that you must allow the stranger in the cabin. He then contends that this judgment casts doubt upon Thomson's claim about the violinist and, therefore, her conclusion about the moral permissibility of abortion.
Consider how Thomson might reply to this objection. Is Fischer correct that you are morally required to allow the stranger in the cabin? If so, is the cabin case analogous to the violinist case or are there important distinctions between them?