CDZ Variation on "Thompson's Violinist" analogy with POLL

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Chuz Life, Apr 4, 2016.

?

Would the person who connects themself to the child be obligated to remain connected to the child?

  1. Yes, they assumed the risk so they would be obligated to keep the child alive for the 9 months.

    83.3%
  2. No, because (give your own explanation)

    16.7%
  1. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,982
    Thanks Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,189
    Please read carefully before taking the poll.

    Lawmakers are often very quick to point out that pregnancy and the physical relationship between a pregnant woman and the child within her is unlike any other set of circumstances in society.

    Sometimes in trying to communicate a point being made, lawmakers (and others) will use a 'hypothetical,' an analogy or some other imagined situation to argue a point.

    Judith Jarvis Thompson's "Violinst" (defense of abortion) is a well known and often used example of this.

    In Thompson's analogy, she asked her readers to imagine yourself waking up in bed - attached to a world famous violinist. . . and then her hypothetical comparisons to a pregnancy goes on from there.

    Thompson's Violinist analogy presumes that both of the people involved in her analogy are "persons" with Constitutional rights. So does mine.

    However, this (my) analogy is slightly different from hers.

    It goes like this. . .

    I would like for you to imagine two people (any two people male or female) taking it upon themself to somehow gain access to a clinic or hospital room where an almost lifeless child is being cared for.

    Imagine the child is in a coma and is completely unaware. The child has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc. However, the child's physicians have determined that the child's condition is likely temporary and will likely improve over time.

    Please assume in this hypothetical that it's possible that the child never will awake from this condition. It's NOT certain.

    Now imagine (much like Thompson did in her analogy) that the visitors choose to engage in an activity where there is a possibility (however slim) for a situation where one of them might end up with the child's body biologically connected to their own body.

    The connection is in such a manner that the child must remain so connected for at least NINE months, else it will likely die.

    Again, if the connection is severed before nine months, the child will die and possibly the other person could die as well.

    The poll question is simple.

    In this above situation. . . If the child becomes connected as a direct result of the risks that the visitors took, would the person who managed to connect themself to the child be obligated to remain so connected for the nine months that they have physically committed to - by placing themself AND the child into that situation?"

    Yes or No?
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2016
  2. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,076
    Thanks Received:
    1,514
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,201
    Analogies are so much easier to deal with than the bodies of dead children.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,982
    Thanks Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,189
    I hope so.

    The point of analogies is usually to examine an issue in a more objective way and to take some of the emotions out of it, so that points can be seen and discussed more productively.

    Judith Jarvis's analogy was to make a point in defense of abortion.

    In my opinion, her analogy was flawed - because in her analogy, the person awakes to find themself connected to a 'famous violinist' through no fault of their own. They are essentially forcibly connected by a 3rd party and it's against their will.

    In that way, Judith Jarvis's analogy is much more along the lines of a rape pregnancy situation than it is a typical pregnancy.

    Though my analogy requires quite a bit of imagination as (Jarvis's analogy does too). . . I believe that my analogy is much more comparable to what a typical pregnancy is.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2016
  4. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,982
    Thanks Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,189
    I'm bumping this thread invite others to provide an analogy to pregnancy of their/ your own.

    It's not as easy as it seems.

    I (for one) would like to see if someone (anyone) can come up with a better analogy for abortion than I or Judith Jarvis have provided for consideration.
     
  5. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    156,524
    Thanks Received:
    14,081
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +44,378
    Chuz, you are a man.

    You don't have the slightest idea what is a pregnancy.

    A woman has no need to justify her action to society, or to you, for that mattr.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. 320 Years of History
    Offline

    320 Years of History Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    6,060
    Thanks Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +2,550
    Were you poll to have stopped at "yes" or "no," I could and would answer it. You've qualified the "yes" and "no" answer in ways that I don't accept and my answer would have neither of those qualifications as the sole driver to my decision.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Luddly Neddite
    Offline

    Luddly Neddite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    62,057
    Thanks Received:
    9,521
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +26,830
    Why does the OP leave men out of this? They are the cause of pregnancy and yet can walk away from their child and actually be congratulated for "sowing his wild oats".

    Meanwhile, the rabid right demonizes the children of these men and despise the women who support them, feed, clothe, educate and raise them.

    Fact is, if people were actually against abortion, they would make birth control readily available to women and force men to pay to raise the children they father.

    The anti-abortion crowd are actually just haters of women and children.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. ABikerSailor
    Offline

    ABikerSailor Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    36,631
    Thanks Received:
    5,939
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Amarillo TX
    Ratings:
    +12,761
    Yeah.................if you don't like abortion, make reliable birth control readily available to anyone that wants it. Might want to set the age limit at 16 with parent's permission and at 18 for any woman that wants it.

    Problem solved. If you have reliable birth control, then you have no need for abortions.
     
  9. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,982
    Thanks Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,189
    So, what would your answer have been, yes or no?

    You can add your own qualifiers in a post without actually taking the poll, can't you?
     
  10. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    16,013
    Thanks Received:
    2,363
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    Because the man does not have an option. At no time can a man 'walk away' from a pregnancy.

    He is tied to that child should it be born and it is not his decision, ever, for the child to be born or aborted. Why do you need to tie men into it? The same thing is said to men every damn time - if you don't want a child then don't have sex.

    That same statement is sacrilegious if it is said to a woman.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page