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

[jwoodie]

Your comment makes me think you did not really understand my analogy/ allegory very well.

You're probably right. I scanned your cited article, but didn't notice a reference to it. Could you explain further, especially concerning "connection?" Would this include conjoined twins? (If so, does one have the right to kill the other?)

 

[Chuz Life]

Your comment makes me think you did not really understand my analogy/ allegory very well.

You're probably right. I scanned your cited article, but didn't notice a reference to it. Could you explain further, especially concerning "connection?" Would this include conjoined twins? (If so, does one have the right to kill the other?)

You seem totally confused by the allegory / analogy and by the poll question.

I don't know what part you are so confused by so I don't know how to make it any easier for you to understand than I have already tried to do. .

 

[jwoodie]

You seem totally confused by the allegory / analogy and by the poll question.

I don't know what part you are so confused by so I don't know how to make it any easier for you to understand than I have already tried to do

Inability or unwillingness to explain one's position does not add to its probity. You said:

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 first paragraph refers to a child without any brain activity. Is this analogous to the first trimester of pregnancy?

The second paragraph assumes fetal development will not continue?

The third paragraph then pivots to activity prior to conception. At that point the child referred to in the first paragraph does not yet exist, so the issue of "connection" is irrelevant to your allegory/analogy.

Contrastingly, your poll question seems to concentrate on the "assumption of risk," which implies some deserved penalty or punishment for those who take it. I do not think that is a convincing proposition regarding this issue.

 

[Chuz Life]

You seem totally confused by the allegory / analogy and by the poll question.

I don't know what part you are so confused by so I don't know how to make it any easier for you to understand than I have already tried to do

Inability or unwillingness to explain one's position does not add to its probity. You said:

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 first paragraph refers to a child without any brain activity. Is this analogous to the first trimester of pregnancy?

In short - Yes.

The second paragraph assumes fetal development will not continue?

This was explained in the analogy. "The doctors have determined that the child's condition is LIKELY temporary." As with everything else in life. . . the doctors could be wrong and there are no guarantees.

The third paragraph then pivots to activity prior to conception. At that point the child referred to in the first paragraph does not yet exist, so the issue of "connection" is irrelevant to your allegory/analogy.

I make no mention or comparison in this analogy to conception. The think that was being compared is the responsibility of someone who physically connects themself to another human being and what that other human being's rights are to remain connected in that situation.

Perhaps you are of the mindset that analogies and allegories must be 100% perfect comparisons for a point to be considered. But the fact is that they never are perfect.

"There is no such thing as the perfect analogy. There will always be differences between the point of view and what it is being compared to."

Contrastingly, your poll question seems to concentrate on the "assumption of risk," which implies some deserved penalty or punishment for those who take it. I do not think that is a convincing proposition regarding this issue.

You are reading (injecting) aspects into the analogy that are not there.

This analogy makes no mention of anything punitive. It's about the responsibilities of the party who makes the connection and the rights of the party (the child) who has been connected.

 

[jwoodie]

I make no mention or comparison in this analogy to conception. The think that was being compared is the responsibility of someone who physically connects themself to another human being and what that other human being's rights are to remain connected in that situation.

Prior to conception, the only "connection" is between the parties having sexual intercourse. That is why I asked about "connection" in the first place.

I am not trying to nitpick; I was just trying to understand the significance of your post/poll. I am still not clear on that point, but I will not further belabor it.

 

[Chuz Life]

I make no mention or comparison in this analogy to conception. The think that was being compared is the responsibility of someone who physically connects themself to another human being and what that other human being's rights are to remain connected in that situation.

Prior to conception, the only "connection" is between the parties having sexual intercourse. That is why I asked about "connection" in the first place.

I am not trying to nitpick; I was just trying to understand the significance of your post/poll. I am still not clear on that point, but I will not further belabor it.

Let me try to make it easier for you.

If I connected your body to mine in such a way that you would DIE if someone cut that connection before approximately 9 months. . . would you or would you not have the right to remain connected to my body for that period of time?

 

[jwoodie]

If I connected your body to mine in such a way that you would DIE if someone cut that connection before approximately 9 months. . . would you or would you not have the right to remain connected to my body for that period of time?

Hence, my question about conjoined twins. Would one have the right to cut their connection if it would terminate the life of the other?

Sorry if I'm being annoying. I just like to think through these issues.

 

[Chuz Life]

If I connected your body to mine in such a way that you would DIE if someone cut that connection before approximately 9 months. . . would you or would you not have the right to remain connected to my body for that period of time?

Hence, my question about conjoined twins. Would one have the right to cut their connection if it would terminate the life of the other?

Sorry if I'm being annoying. I just like to think through these issues.

The question stands on its own.

It has nothing to do with conjoined twins.

What is the reason for your inability to deal with one situation or question at a time?

 

[jwoodie]

The question stands on its own.

Then why did you have to preface your post with:
Please read carefully before taking the poll...

It has nothing to do with conjoined twins.

I think conjoined twins are much more analogous than your example; both are alive with no expectation of imminent death.

What is the reason for your inability to deal with one situation or question at a time?

One piece does not solve an entire puzzle.

 

[Chuz Life]

The question stands on its own.

Then why did you have to preface your post with:
Please read carefully before taking the poll...

It has nothing to do with conjoined twins.

I think conjoined twins are much more analogous than your example; both are alive with no expectation of imminent death.

What is the reason for your inability to deal with one situation or question at a time?

One piece does not solve an entire puzzle.

No kidding.

But if you can't even put the first two pieces together, what chance do you have of ever solving the rest.

Your reluctance to answer the question tells me everything I need to know about the validity of the point made in this analogy.

 

[320 Years of History]

I make no mention or comparison in this analogy to conception. The think that was being compared is the responsibility of someone who physically connects themself to another human being and what that other human being's rights are to remain connected in that situation.

Prior to conception, the only "connection" is between the parties having sexual intercourse. That is why I asked about "connection" in the first place.

I am not trying to nitpick; I was just trying to understand the significance of your post/poll. I am still not clear on that point, but I will not further belabor it.

Let me try to make it easier for you.

If I connected your body to mine in such a way that you would DIE if someone cut that connection before approximately 9 months. . . would you or would you not have the right to remain connected to my body for that period of time?

FWIW, I think you need to distinguish between a "right" and an "obligation." In this context, they are not synonymous.

 

[Chuz Life]

I make no mention or comparison in this analogy to conception. The think that was being compared is the responsibility of someone who physically connects themself to another human being and what that other human being's rights are to remain connected in that situation.

Prior to conception, the only "connection" is between the parties having sexual intercourse. That is why I asked about "connection" in the first place.

I am not trying to nitpick; I was just trying to understand the significance of your post/poll. I am still not clear on that point, but I will not further belabor it.

Let me try to make it easier for you.

If I connected your body to mine in such a way that you would DIE if someone cut that connection before approximately 9 months. . . would you or would you not have the right to remain connected to my body for that period of time?

FWIW, I think you need to distinguish between a "right" and an "obligation." In this context, they are not synonymous.

I can't see what it is that you find confusing about this.

In my analogy (allegory) one person has the right to remain attached to the other person because they were connected against their will and through no fault of their own and the other has the obligation to remain connected because they are the one who assumed the risks and essentially forced the "connection" onto the other.

I am not stating in any way that the two terms are synonymous.

 

[320 Years of History]

I can't see what it is that you find confusing about this.

I don't find anything confusing about your allegory. I was just thinking that the distinction may be both not well grasped by the other member and thus among the things they other member sees as challenging about answering. I already answered the question you asked. I don't have more to say than that as goes that question.

 

[Chuz Life]

I can't see what it is that you find confusing about this.

I don't find anything confusing about your allegory. I was just thinking that the distinction may be both not well grasped by the other member and thus among the things they other member sees as challenging about answering. I already answered the question you asked. I don't have more to say than that as goes that question.

I can't imagine how the scenario in my allegory is any more confusing than the one posed by Judith Jarvis. They are not that far apart in their settings.

Hopefully, my prior post will help clarify the point.

 

[320 Years of History]

I can't see what it is that you find confusing about this.

I don't find anything confusing about your allegory. I was just thinking that the distinction may be both not well grasped by the other member and thus among the things they other member sees as challenging about answering. I already answered the question you asked. I don't have more to say than that as goes that question.

I can't imagine how the scenario in my allegory is any more confusing than the one posed by Judith Jarvis. They are not that far apart in their settings.

Hopefully, my prior post will help clarify the point.

One can only hope, but around USMB, hope is much like the best laid plans of mice and men. LOL

 

[Chuz Life]

I can't see what it is that you find confusing about this.

I don't find anything confusing about your allegory. I was just thinking that the distinction may be both not well grasped by the other member and thus among the things they other member sees as challenging about answering. I already answered the question you asked. I don't have more to say than that as goes that question.

I can't imagine how the scenario in my allegory is any more confusing than the one posed by Judith Jarvis. They are not that far apart in their settings.

Hopefully, my prior post will help clarify the point.

One can only hope, but around USMB, hope is much like the best laid plans of mice and men. LOL

In as much as I 'hope' that I have made some clarifications to this poll. . . that is about the extent of my investment. I am already satisfied (by the results) that the point has been made and that it can be made again.

If others want to add their answers? That's fine. However, I doubt that many others will put as much thought into their answers as you did.

 

[320 Years of History]

put as much thought into their answers as you did.

...Well, as I stated elsewhere in the forum, I believe that responding to inquiries with thoughtful answers is a way to show respect for both the questioner(s) and other audience members, especially when the topic is one that matters greatly to anyone in those two groups.

 

[Chuz Life]

Bumping this thread because I am still interested in reading any allegories or analogies that anyone else can come up with to illustrate these same points.

 

[320 Years of History]

Bumping this thread because I am still interested in reading any allegories or analogies that anyone else can come up with to illustrate these same points.

Frankly, I think Ms. Thompson's "violinist's" allegory works just fine.

From what I can tell, it seems you place the same value on the life of a fetus as you do on the life of a a born person. Now you may not like it, but the fact is that in an environment where individuals must make choices, the life of a fetus, or even a born infant, just isn't as valuable as that of a matured adult. As much has been empirically shown by Olof Johansson-Stenman & Peter Martinsson in "Are Some Lives More Valuable?" wherein they found that "the relative value of a saved life decreases with age in a pattern that is consistent with a discounted utilitarian model, with a pure rate of time preference of a few percent."

Look at the results they obtained and reported in Table 4. Looking at it, one sees the value of a life of a ten year old is less than that of a 30 year old, but more than that of a 50 or 70 year old. In other words, the value of a human, is lowest at the start and end of a human's existence.

Now I realize a lot of folks don't care to deal with the brutally empirical nature of studies such as Johansson-Stenman and Martinsson's, but the reality is that we must, and in fact we do apply the findings in a very practical way. It may not occur to many folks but findings such as those noted in the paper are exactly what actuaries use to determine life insurance premiums. Indeed, the lack of/indeterminate value of a fetus is partly why one cannot get life insurance for a fetus.

 

[Chuz Life]

Bumping this thread because I am still interested in reading any allegories or analogies that anyone else can come up with to illustrate these same points.

Frankly, I think Ms. Thompson's "violinist's" allegory works just fine.

From what I can tell, it seems you place the same value on the life of a fetus as you do on the life of a a born person. Now you may not like it, but the fact is that in an environment where individuals must make choices, the life of a fetus, or even a born infant, just isn't as valuable as that of a matured adult. As much has been empirically shown by Olof Johansson-Stenman & Peter Martinsson in "Are Some Lives More Valuable?" wherein they found that "the relative value of a saved life decreases with age in a pattern that is consistent with a discounted utilitarian model, with a pure rate of time preference of a few percent."

Look at the results they obtained and reported in Table 4. Looking at it, one sees the value of a life of a ten year old is less than that of a 30 year old, but more than that of a 50 or 70 year old. In other words, the value of a human, is lowest at the start and end of a human's existence.

Now I realize a lot of folks don't care to deal with the brutally empirical nature of studies such as Johansson-Stenman and Martinsson's, but the reality is that we must, and in fact we do apply the findings in a very practical way. It may not occur to many folks but findings such as those noted in the paper are exactly what actuaries use to determine life insurance premiums. Indeed, the lack of/indeterminate value of a fetus is partly why one cannot get life insurance for a fetus.

In the violinist allegory, the person is tied to the "Violinst " by a 3rd party and without any action of risk taking of their own.

Because of that, the Violinst allegory is much more comparable to a rape pregnancy than it is a typical pregnancy that results from the risks taken in having consensual sex.

Isn't it?


Where is the component in the Violinst allegory that represents the assumption of a risk for pregnancy in a consensual act of intercourse?