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

[320 Years of History]

What gives you that idea?

Even when there isn't a "formal" poll, people here seem disinclined to answer simple questions and be held accountable for their answers. See this thread as another example....What could be easier to respond to and subsequently discuss than a set of questions that asks one to boil one's views down to predominantly "yes" or predominantly "no," thereby answering "yes/no" to the questions and then discussing one's answers as one feels the need to do so?

 

[jwoodie]

Even when there isn't a "formal" poll, people here seem disinclined to answer simple questions and be held accountable for their answers. See this thread as another example....

Referencing your own (failed) thread is pathetic. And the questions it contained were, indeed, simplistic.

 

[Chuz Life]

Bump, I'm still looking for anyone else's analogies or allegories to a normal , typical pregnancy that results from a consensual act.

Anyone got one better than mine?

 

[Chuz Life]

Necro Bump

 

[JakeStarkey]

Constitutional precedent is quite clear (today) that the fetus as a person is limited solely by the viability it may have outside the womb and its relationship to its carrier.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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?"

Basic answer:
Hell no! No rational person should or would anyone feel so obligated by an act of visitation to, as you put it, a "child [that] has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc." Sh*t sometimes happens when one takes on risk, and other times it does not. If one has done nothing wrong, one need not feel obliged to bear the burden of the misfortune resulting from one's well intentioned deeds.

Analysis:
Even when the outcomes are identical, the circumstances leading to the taking a risk and having it not pan out as hoped differ from those of one's deliberately committing to an action for the purpose of achieving the specific outcome.

Prior to undertaking a given action (or set thereof), A, for the purpose of achieving outcome, O, if one is clear thinking, one will identify the attendant risks of performing A and develop a risk mitigation plan that specifies what legal actions B, C, D, etc. one will follow (1) to prevent the associated risks from becoming manifest, and (2) to attenuate the impact of the risks in the event they materialize into reality.

One can think and say whatever one wants to say about the individual's election to perform A, thereby assuming the corresponding risk(s) of doing so, but so long as A is permitted, the added burden of A's risks in pursuit of O are merely additional costs of A, and that is not one's business but rather the business of the individual(s) who undertook A.

Though I'm not familiar with Judith's violin scenario, I can quite plainly see a huge difference between the process by which coitus leads to conception and the sequence of events in the storyline you've presented. I don't know what makes you, or anyone, think I'd see the process flow you've depicted as an analogue for that of coitus, conception, gestation and birth. That is no minor distinction you've introduced into the allegory. Quite simply, a fetus does not exist prior to coitus, the act that corresponds in your story to visitation. Maybe someday I'll read Judith's allegory, but if/when I do so, I sure as hell hope hers is better structured than is yours.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yo

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?"

Basic answer:
Hell no! No rational person should or would anyone feel so obligated by an act of visitation to, as you put it, a "child [that] has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc." Sh*t sometimes happens when one takes on risk, and other times it does not. If one has done nothing wrong, one need not feel obliged to bear the burden of the misfortune resulting from one's well intentioned deeds.

Analysis:
Even when the outcomes are identical, the circumstances leading to the taking a risk and having it not pan out as hoped differ from those of one's deliberately committing to an action for the purpose of achieving the specific outcome.

Prior to undertaking a given action (or set thereof), A, for the purpose of achieving outcome, O, if one is clear thinking, one will identify the attendant risks of performing A and develop a risk mitigation plan that specifies what legal actions B, C, D, etc. one will follow (1) to prevent the associated risks from becoming manifest, and (2) to attenuate the impact of the risks in the event they materialize into reality.

One can think and say whatever one wants to say about the individual's election to perform A, thereby assuming the corresponding risk(s) of doing so, but so long as A is permitted, the added burden of A's risks in pursuit of O are merely additional costs of A, and that is not one's business but rather the business of the individual(s) who undertook A.

Though I'm not familiar with Judith's violin scenario, I can quite plainly see a huge difference between the process by which coitus leads to conception and the sequence of events in the storyline you've presented. I don't know what makes you, or anyone, think I'd see the process flow you've depicted as an analogue for that of coitus, conception, gestation and birth. That is no minor distinction you've introduced into the allegory. Quite simply, a fetus does not exist prior to coitus, the act that corresponds in your story to visitation. Maybe someday I'll read Judith's allegory, but if/when I do so, I sure as hell hope hers is better structured than is yours.

You have either misunderstood or you have intentionally skewed the analogy... so much so that it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

The analogy / poll is not about a "visitation " gone bad. It's about the assumptions of risks, the forseeable consequences of the risks taken and the responsibilities for those affected by the choices (and risks) that were taken or made.

You can't break into a hospital room and tamper with the equipment and the patients bodies there and call it a "visitation."

Can you?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yo

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?"

Basic answer:
Hell no! No rational person should or would anyone feel so obligated by an act of visitation to, as you put it, a "child [that] has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc." Sh*t sometimes happens when one takes on risk, and other times it does not. If one has done nothing wrong, one need not feel obliged to bear the burden of the misfortune resulting from one's well intentioned deeds.

Analysis:
Even when the outcomes are identical, the circumstances leading to the taking a risk and having it not pan out as hoped differ from those of one's deliberately committing to an action for the purpose of achieving the specific outcome.

Prior to undertaking a given action (or set thereof), A, for the purpose of achieving outcome, O, if one is clear thinking, one will identify the attendant risks of performing A and develop a risk mitigation plan that specifies what legal actions B, C, D, etc. one will follow (1) to prevent the associated risks from becoming manifest, and (2) to attenuate the impact of the risks in the event they materialize into reality.

One can think and say whatever one wants to say about the individual's election to perform A, thereby assuming the corresponding risk(s) of doing so, but so long as A is permitted, the added burden of A's risks in pursuit of O are merely additional costs of A, and that is not one's business but rather the business of the individual(s) who undertook A.

Though I'm not familiar with Judith's violin scenario, I can quite plainly see a huge difference between the process by which coitus leads to conception and the sequence of events in the storyline you've presented. I don't know what makes you, or anyone, think I'd see the process flow you've depicted as an analogue for that of coitus, conception, gestation and birth. That is no minor distinction you've introduced into the allegory. Quite simply, a fetus does not exist prior to coitus, the act that corresponds in your story to visitation. Maybe someday I'll read Judith's allegory, but if/when I do so, I sure as hell hope hers is better structured than is yours.

You have either misunderstood or you have intentionally skewed the analogy... so much so that it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

The analogy / poll is not about a "visitation " gone bad. It's about the assumptions of risks, the forseeable consequences of the risks taken and the responsibilities for those affected by the choices (and risks) that were taken or made.

You can't break into a hospital room and tamper with the equipment and the patients bodies there and call it a "visitation."

Can you?

You have either misunderstood or you have intentionally skewed the analogy... It's about the assumptions of risks, the forseeable consequences of the risks taken and the responsibilities for those affected by the choices (and risks) that were taken or made.

...And risk is all I wrote about...

• What brings about the assumption of risk? An action.
• What is the action that brought about the risks in your scenario? The visitation.
• Realizing one is about to assume risk, what must one do prior to undertaking the action that may expose one/others to one or several foreseen risks? Plan to mitigate or attenuate the risks should they materialize into reality.
• What is one's responsibility to a thing that "has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc." at the outset of the risk predicate and that is adversely affected by the risks one takes? Zero.

it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

I think we both agree on that part of your comments.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yo

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?"

Basic answer:
Hell no! No rational person should or would anyone feel so obligated by an act of visitation to, as you put it, a "child [that] has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc." Sh*t sometimes happens when one takes on risk, and other times it does not. If one has done nothing wrong, one need not feel obliged to bear the burden of the misfortune resulting from one's well intentioned deeds.

Analysis:
Even when the outcomes are identical, the circumstances leading to the taking a risk and having it not pan out as hoped differ from those of one's deliberately committing to an action for the purpose of achieving the specific outcome.

Prior to undertaking a given action (or set thereof), A, for the purpose of achieving outcome, O, if one is clear thinking, one will identify the attendant risks of performing A and develop a risk mitigation plan that specifies what legal actions B, C, D, etc. one will follow (1) to prevent the associated risks from becoming manifest, and (2) to attenuate the impact of the risks in the event they materialize into reality.

One can think and say whatever one wants to say about the individual's election to perform A, thereby assuming the corresponding risk(s) of doing so, but so long as A is permitted, the added burden of A's risks in pursuit of O are merely additional costs of A, and that is not one's business but rather the business of the individual(s) who undertook A.

Though I'm not familiar with Judith's violin scenario, I can quite plainly see a huge difference between the process by which coitus leads to conception and the sequence of events in the storyline you've presented. I don't know what makes you, or anyone, think I'd see the process flow you've depicted as an analogue for that of coitus, conception, gestation and birth. That is no minor distinction you've introduced into the allegory. Quite simply, a fetus does not exist prior to coitus, the act that corresponds in your story to visitation. Maybe someday I'll read Judith's allegory, but if/when I do so, I sure as hell hope hers is better structured than is yours.

You have either misunderstood or you have intentionally skewed the analogy... so much so that it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

The analogy / poll is not about a "visitation " gone bad. It's about the assumptions of risks, the forseeable consequences of the risks taken and the responsibilities for those affected by the choices (and risks) that were taken or made.

You can't break into a hospital room and tamper with the equipment and the patients bodies there and call it a "visitation."

Can you?

You have either misunderstood or you have intentionally skewed the analogy... It's about the assumptions of risks, the forseeable consequences of the risks taken and the responsibilities for those affected by the choices (and risks) that were taken or made.

...And risk is all I wrote about...

• What brings about the assumption of risk? An action.
• What is the action that brought about the risks in your scenario? The visitation.
• Realizing one is about to assume risk, what must one do prior to undertaking the action that may expose one/others to one or several foreseen risks? Plan to mitigate or attenuate the risks should they materialize into reality.
• What is one's responsibility to a thing that "has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc." at the outset of the risk predicate and that is adversely affected by the risks one takes? Zero.

it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

I think we both agree on that part of your comments.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

If I were try connect your body to mine in such a way that you will die if that connection is broken at any time prior to a nine months cutoff point. . .

Would you or would you not have the legal right to remain connected to my body for the full nine months.

Yes or no?

Yes you would or no, you would not.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yo

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?"

Basic answer:
Hell no! No rational person should or would anyone feel so obligated by an act of visitation to, as you put it, a "child [that] has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc." Sh*t sometimes happens when one takes on risk, and other times it does not. If one has done nothing wrong, one need not feel obliged to bear the burden of the misfortune resulting from one's well intentioned deeds.

Analysis:
Even when the outcomes are identical, the circumstances leading to the taking a risk and having it not pan out as hoped differ from those of one's deliberately committing to an action for the purpose of achieving the specific outcome.

Prior to undertaking a given action (or set thereof), A, for the purpose of achieving outcome, O, if one is clear thinking, one will identify the attendant risks of performing A and develop a risk mitigation plan that specifies what legal actions B, C, D, etc. one will follow (1) to prevent the associated risks from becoming manifest, and (2) to attenuate the impact of the risks in the event they materialize into reality.

One can think and say whatever one wants to say about the individual's election to perform A, thereby assuming the corresponding risk(s) of doing so, but so long as A is permitted, the added burden of A's risks in pursuit of O are merely additional costs of A, and that is not one's business but rather the business of the individual(s) who undertook A.

Though I'm not familiar with Judith's violin scenario, I can quite plainly see a huge difference between the process by which coitus leads to conception and the sequence of events in the storyline you've presented. I don't know what makes you, or anyone, think I'd see the process flow you've depicted as an analogue for that of coitus, conception, gestation and birth. That is no minor distinction you've introduced into the allegory. Quite simply, a fetus does not exist prior to coitus, the act that corresponds in your story to visitation. Maybe someday I'll read Judith's allegory, but if/when I do so, I sure as hell hope hers is better structured than is yours.

You have either misunderstood or you have intentionally skewed the analogy... so much so that it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

The analogy / poll is not about a "visitation " gone bad. It's about the assumptions of risks, the forseeable consequences of the risks taken and the responsibilities for those affected by the choices (and risks) that were taken or made.

You can't break into a hospital room and tamper with the equipment and the patients bodies there and call it a "visitation."

Can you?

You have either misunderstood or you have intentionally skewed the analogy... It's about the assumptions of risks, the forseeable consequences of the risks taken and the responsibilities for those affected by the choices (and risks) that were taken or made.

...And risk is all I wrote about...

• What brings about the assumption of risk? An action.
• What is the action that brought about the risks in your scenario? The visitation.
• Realizing one is about to assume risk, what must one do prior to undertaking the action that may expose one/others to one or several foreseen risks? Plan to mitigate or attenuate the risks should they materialize into reality.
• What is one's responsibility to a thing that "has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc." at the outset of the risk predicate and that is adversely affected by the risks one takes? Zero.

it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

I think we both agree on that part of your comments.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

If I were try connect your body to mine in such a way that you will die if that connection is broken at any time prior to a nine months cutoff point. . .

Would you or would you not have the legal right to remain connected to my body for the full nine months.

Yes or no?

Yes you would or no, you would not.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

The first words of my original post in this thread directly and unequivocally answered the question you asked. I will repeat both the question I answered and my answer to it:

[

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?"

Hell no!

I don't have and will not give a different answer, no matter how many times or ways you ask the question. I know exactly what you asked and I know what I think about the situation as you presented it.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

I had no trouble at all with your allegory. I submit that it is you who has trouble with the dissimilarity between the answer you'd give and that which I gave. Perhaps it is you who has trouble with the fact that I don't feel one iota of compassion for a thing that prior to one's acting in any given way "has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc?" Perhaps it is you who cannot understand that not everyone sees things as you do in a scenario that is, as you put it, about managing risk and the approaches one might adopt in doing so?

I can't say what exactly it is you don't understand; I cannot read your mind. What I can say is that the answer you got from should not be among the things you don't understand. I cannot be any more clear than "hell no."



I don't care what you think about my answer or about my ability to comprehend your OP. I didn't give you answer with any expectation that you like my answer. I don't seek your approbation or regard for the limits of my comprehension. I gave my answer. Like it or don't, but accept it or move on either way, because you asked for it and received my very "un-wishy-washy" answer.

If you are going to ask a question that, upon receiving an answer you don't like and your only retort is to accuse the responder of not understanding something, you perhaps shouldn't have asked the question you did.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yo

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?"

Basic answer:
Hell no! No rational person should or would anyone feel so obligated by an act of visitation to, as you put it, a "child [that] has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc." Sh*t sometimes happens when one takes on risk, and other times it does not. If one has done nothing wrong, one need not feel obliged to bear the burden of the misfortune resulting from one's well intentioned deeds.

Analysis:
Even when the outcomes are identical, the circumstances leading to the taking a risk and having it not pan out as hoped differ from those of one's deliberately committing to an action for the purpose of achieving the specific outcome.

Prior to undertaking a given action (or set thereof), A, for the purpose of achieving outcome, O, if one is clear thinking, one will identify the attendant risks of performing A and develop a risk mitigation plan that specifies what legal actions B, C, D, etc. one will follow (1) to prevent the associated risks from becoming manifest, and (2) to attenuate the impact of the risks in the event they materialize into reality.

One can think and say whatever one wants to say about the individual's election to perform A, thereby assuming the corresponding risk(s) of doing so, but so long as A is permitted, the added burden of A's risks in pursuit of O are merely additional costs of A, and that is not one's business but rather the business of the individual(s) who undertook A.

Though I'm not familiar with Judith's violin scenario, I can quite plainly see a huge difference between the process by which coitus leads to conception and the sequence of events in the storyline you've presented. I don't know what makes you, or anyone, think I'd see the process flow you've depicted as an analogue for that of coitus, conception, gestation and birth. That is no minor distinction you've introduced into the allegory. Quite simply, a fetus does not exist prior to coitus, the act that corresponds in your story to visitation. Maybe someday I'll read Judith's allegory, but if/when I do so, I sure as hell hope hers is better structured than is yours.

You have either misunderstood or you have intentionally skewed the analogy... so much so that it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

The analogy / poll is not about a "visitation " gone bad. It's about the assumptions of risks, the forseeable consequences of the risks taken and the responsibilities for those affected by the choices (and risks) that were taken or made.

You can't break into a hospital room and tamper with the equipment and the patients bodies there and call it a "visitation."

Can you?

You have either misunderstood or you have intentionally skewed the analogy... It's about the assumptions of risks, the forseeable consequences of the risks taken and the responsibilities for those affected by the choices (and risks) that were taken or made.

...And risk is all I wrote about...

• What brings about the assumption of risk? An action.
• What is the action that brought about the risks in your scenario? The visitation.
• Realizing one is about to assume risk, what must one do prior to undertaking the action that may expose one/others to one or several foreseen risks? Plan to mitigate or attenuate the risks should they materialize into reality.
• What is one's responsibility to a thing that "has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc." at the outset of the risk predicate and that is adversely affected by the risks one takes? Zero.

it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

I think we both agree on that part of your comments.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

If I were try connect your body to mine in such a way that you will die if that connection is broken at any time prior to a nine months cutoff point. . .

Would you or would you not have the legal right to remain connected to my body for the full nine months.

Yes or no?

Yes you would or no, you would not.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

The first words of my original post in this thread directly and unequivocally answered the question you asked. I will repeat both the question I answered and my answer to it:

[

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?"

Hell no!

I don't have and will not give a different answer, no matter how many times or ways you ask the question. I know exactly what you asked and I know what I think about the situation as you presented it.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

I had no trouble at all with your allegory. I submit that it is you who has trouble with the dissimilarity between the answer you'd give and that which I gave. Perhaps it is you who has trouble with the fact that I don't feel one iota of compassion for a thing that prior to one's acting in any given way "has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc?" Perhaps it is you who cannot understand that not everyone sees things as you do in a scenario that is, as you put it, about managing risk and the approaches one might adopt in doing so?

I can't say what exactly it is you don't understand; I cannot read your mind. What I can say is that the answer you got from should not be among the things you don't understand. I cannot be any more clear than "hell no."



I don't care what you think about my answer or about my ability to comprehend your OP. I didn't give you answer with any expectation that you like my answer. I don't seek your approbation or regard for the limits of my comprehension. I gave my answer. Like it or don't, but accept it or move on either way, because you asked for it and received my very "un-wishy-washy" answer.

If you are going to ask a question that, upon receiving an answer you don't like and your only retort is to accuse the responder of not understanding something, you perhaps shouldn't have asked the question you did.

That was a very nicely worded rant.

And if you want to believe that you would not have or should not have the legal right to maintain the connection to someone else's body if they were to connected theirs to yours in the way that I described in my questions? That's fine.

I just wanted to be sure all the angles were examined.

I obviously disagree with you, because I can not find it anywhere in our laws or in the Constitution . . . Where anyone has the right to use entrapment or especially accidental entrapment as an excuse / justification/ defense in the death of another human being.

Also, for what it is worth? Cognition, self awareness, the ability to feel pain, etc... none of them are requirements for personhood.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yo

Basic answer:
Hell no! No rational person should or would anyone feel so obligated by an act of visitation to, as you put it, a "child [that] has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc." Sh*t sometimes happens when one takes on risk, and other times it does not. If one has done nothing wrong, one need not feel obliged to bear the burden of the misfortune resulting from one's well intentioned deeds.

Analysis:
Even when the outcomes are identical, the circumstances leading to the taking a risk and having it not pan out as hoped differ from those of one's deliberately committing to an action for the purpose of achieving the specific outcome.

Prior to undertaking a given action (or set thereof), A, for the purpose of achieving outcome, O, if one is clear thinking, one will identify the attendant risks of performing A and develop a risk mitigation plan that specifies what legal actions B, C, D, etc. one will follow (1) to prevent the associated risks from becoming manifest, and (2) to attenuate the impact of the risks in the event they materialize into reality.

One can think and say whatever one wants to say about the individual's election to perform A, thereby assuming the corresponding risk(s) of doing so, but so long as A is permitted, the added burden of A's risks in pursuit of O are merely additional costs of A, and that is not one's business but rather the business of the individual(s) who undertook A.

Though I'm not familiar with Judith's violin scenario, I can quite plainly see a huge difference between the process by which coitus leads to conception and the sequence of events in the storyline you've presented. I don't know what makes you, or anyone, think I'd see the process flow you've depicted as an analogue for that of coitus, conception, gestation and birth. That is no minor distinction you've introduced into the allegory. Quite simply, a fetus does not exist prior to coitus, the act that corresponds in your story to visitation. Maybe someday I'll read Judith's allegory, but if/when I do so, I sure as hell hope hers is better structured than is yours.

You have either misunderstood or you have intentionally skewed the analogy... so much so that it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

The analogy / poll is not about a "visitation " gone bad. It's about the assumptions of risks, the forseeable consequences of the risks taken and the responsibilities for those affected by the choices (and risks) that were taken or made.

You can't break into a hospital room and tamper with the equipment and the patients bodies there and call it a "visitation."

Can you?

You have either misunderstood or you have intentionally skewed the analogy... It's about the assumptions of risks, the forseeable consequences of the risks taken and the responsibilities for those affected by the choices (and risks) that were taken or made.

...And risk is all I wrote about...

• What brings about the assumption of risk? An action.
• What is the action that brought about the risks in your scenario? The visitation.
• Realizing one is about to assume risk, what must one do prior to undertaking the action that may expose one/others to one or several foreseen risks? Plan to mitigate or attenuate the risks should they materialize into reality.
• What is one's responsibility to a thing that "has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc." at the outset of the risk predicate and that is adversely affected by the risks one takes? Zero.

it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

I think we both agree on that part of your comments.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

If I were try connect your body to mine in such a way that you will die if that connection is broken at any time prior to a nine months cutoff point. . .

Would you or would you not have the legal right to remain connected to my body for the full nine months.

Yes or no?

Yes you would or no, you would not.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

The first words of my original post in this thread directly and unequivocally answered the question you asked. I will repeat both the question I answered and my answer to it:

[

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?"

Hell no!

I don't have and will not give a different answer, no matter how many times or ways you ask the question. I know exactly what you asked and I know what I think about the situation as you presented it.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

I had no trouble at all with your allegory. I submit that it is you who has trouble with the dissimilarity between the answer you'd give and that which I gave. Perhaps it is you who has trouble with the fact that I don't feel one iota of compassion for a thing that prior to one's acting in any given way "has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc?" Perhaps it is you who cannot understand that not everyone sees things as you do in a scenario that is, as you put it, about managing risk and the approaches one might adopt in doing so?

I can't say what exactly it is you don't understand; I cannot read your mind. What I can say is that the answer you got from should not be among the things you don't understand. I cannot be any more clear than "hell no."



I don't care what you think about my answer or about my ability to comprehend your OP. I didn't give you answer with any expectation that you like my answer. I don't seek your approbation or regard for the limits of my comprehension. I gave my answer. Like it or don't, but accept it or move on either way, because you asked for it and received my very "un-wishy-washy" answer.

If you are going to ask a question that, upon receiving an answer you don't like and your only retort is to accuse the responder of not understanding something, you perhaps shouldn't have asked the question you did.

That was a very nicely worded rant.

And if you want to believe that you would not have or should not have the legal right to maintain the connection to someone else's body if they were to connected theirs to yours in the way that I described in my questions? That's fine.

I just wanted to be sure all the angles were examined.

I obviously disagree with you, because I can not find it anywhere in our laws or in the Constitution . . . Where anyone has the right to use entrapment or especially accidental entrapment as an excuse / justification/ defense in the death of another human being.

Look, stop trying to "frame" and cast my answer. You asked the question and i gave you a very clear and highly literate answer to it. You don't need to tell me what I think or believe; I know that better than you. I told you what my position is on the matter about which you asked. Period.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yo
You have either misunderstood or you have intentionally skewed the analogy... so much so that it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

The analogy / poll is not about a "visitation " gone bad. It's about the assumptions of risks, the forseeable consequences of the risks taken and the responsibilities for those affected by the choices (and risks) that were taken or made.

You can't break into a hospital room and tamper with the equipment and the patients bodies there and call it a "visitation."

Can you?

You have either misunderstood or you have intentionally skewed the analogy... It's about the assumptions of risks, the forseeable consequences of the risks taken and the responsibilities for those affected by the choices (and risks) that were taken or made.

...And risk is all I wrote about...

• What brings about the assumption of risk? An action.
• What is the action that brought about the risks in your scenario? The visitation.
• Realizing one is about to assume risk, what must one do prior to undertaking the action that may expose one/others to one or several foreseen risks? Plan to mitigate or attenuate the risks should they materialize into reality.
• What is one's responsibility to a thing that "has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc." at the outset of the risk predicate and that is adversely affected by the risks one takes? Zero.

it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

I think we both agree on that part of your comments.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

If I were try connect your body to mine in such a way that you will die if that connection is broken at any time prior to a nine months cutoff point. . .

Would you or would you not have the legal right to remain connected to my body for the full nine months.

Yes or no?

Yes you would or no, you would not.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

The first words of my original post in this thread directly and unequivocally answered the question you asked. I will repeat both the question I answered and my answer to it:

[

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?"

Hell no!

I don't have and will not give a different answer, no matter how many times or ways you ask the question. I know exactly what you asked and I know what I think about the situation as you presented it.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

I had no trouble at all with your allegory. I submit that it is you who has trouble with the dissimilarity between the answer you'd give and that which I gave. Perhaps it is you who has trouble with the fact that I don't feel one iota of compassion for a thing that prior to one's acting in any given way "has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc?" Perhaps it is you who cannot understand that not everyone sees things as you do in a scenario that is, as you put it, about managing risk and the approaches one might adopt in doing so?

I can't say what exactly it is you don't understand; I cannot read your mind. What I can say is that the answer you got from should not be among the things you don't understand. I cannot be any more clear than "hell no."



I don't care what you think about my answer or about my ability to comprehend your OP. I didn't give you answer with any expectation that you like my answer. I don't seek your approbation or regard for the limits of my comprehension. I gave my answer. Like it or don't, but accept it or move on either way, because you asked for it and received my very "un-wishy-washy" answer.

If you are going to ask a question that, upon receiving an answer you don't like and your only retort is to accuse the responder of not understanding something, you perhaps shouldn't have asked the question you did.

That was a very nicely worded rant.

And if you want to believe that you would not have or should not have the legal right to maintain the connection to someone else's body if they were to connected theirs to yours in the way that I described in my questions? That's fine.

I just wanted to be sure all the angles were examined.

I obviously disagree with you, because I can not find it anywhere in our laws or in the Constitution . . . Where anyone has the right to use entrapment or especially accidental entrapment as an excuse / justification/ defense in the death of another human being.

Look, stop trying to "frame" and cast my answer. You asked the question and i gave you a very clear and highly literate answer to it. You don't need to tell me what I think or believe; I know that better than you. I told you what my position is on the matter about what you asked. Period.

This a forum for discussion. If you don't like seeing responses to your posts, you might consider not participating.

You have ample room and time to add to or to clarify your posts as you may want to.

Your answer to the question, so far, is still "hell no."

Correct?

If so, then my response is still the same too.

 

[usmbguest5318]

...And risk is all I wrote about...

• What brings about the assumption of risk? An action.
• What is the action that brought about the risks in your scenario? The visitation.
• Realizing one is about to assume risk, what must one do prior to undertaking the action that may expose one/others to one or several foreseen risks? Plan to mitigate or attenuate the risks should they materialize into reality.
• What is one's responsibility to a thing that "has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc." at the outset of the risk predicate and that is adversely affected by the risks one takes? Zero.

I think we both agree on that part of your comments.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

If I were try connect your body to mine in such a way that you will die if that connection is broken at any time prior to a nine months cutoff point. . .

Would you or would you not have the legal right to remain connected to my body for the full nine months.

Yes or no?

Yes you would or no, you would not.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

The first words of my original post in this thread directly and unequivocally answered the question you asked. I will repeat both the question I answered and my answer to it:

[

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?"

Hell no!

I don't have and will not give a different answer, no matter how many times or ways you ask the question. I know exactly what you asked and I know what I think about the situation as you presented it.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

I had no trouble at all with your allegory. I submit that it is you who has trouble with the dissimilarity between the answer you'd give and that which I gave. Perhaps it is you who has trouble with the fact that I don't feel one iota of compassion for a thing that prior to one's acting in any given way "has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc?" Perhaps it is you who cannot understand that not everyone sees things as you do in a scenario that is, as you put it, about managing risk and the approaches one might adopt in doing so?

I can't say what exactly it is you don't understand; I cannot read your mind. What I can say is that the answer you got from should not be among the things you don't understand. I cannot be any more clear than "hell no."



I don't care what you think about my answer or about my ability to comprehend your OP. I didn't give you answer with any expectation that you like my answer. I don't seek your approbation or regard for the limits of my comprehension. I gave my answer. Like it or don't, but accept it or move on either way, because you asked for it and received my very "un-wishy-washy" answer.

If you are going to ask a question that, upon receiving an answer you don't like and your only retort is to accuse the responder of not understanding something, you perhaps shouldn't have asked the question you did.

That was a very nicely worded rant.

And if you want to believe that you would not have or should not have the legal right to maintain the connection to someone else's body if they were to connected theirs to yours in the way that I described in my questions? That's fine.

I just wanted to be sure all the angles were examined.

I obviously disagree with you, because I can not find it anywhere in our laws or in the Constitution . . . Where anyone has the right to use entrapment or especially accidental entrapment as an excuse / justification/ defense in the death of another human being.

Look, stop trying to "frame" and cast my answer. You asked the question and i gave you a very clear and highly literate answer to it. You don't need to tell me what I think or believe; I know that better than you. I told you what my position is on the matter about what you asked. Period.

This a forum for discussion. If you don't like seeing responses to your posts, you might consider not participating.

You have ample room and time to add to or to clarify your posts as you may want to.

Your answer to the question, so far, is still "hell no."

Correct?

If so, then my response is still the same too.

If you don't like seeing responses to your posts,

There's nothing to discuss. You asked a "yes or no" question and I provided my answer -- no -- along with how I arrived at that answer, which, though I shared that information, doesn't alter the fact that you asked a question to which the a direct answer is given by a binary set of choices. If you wanted to entreat for discussion, you should have asked an open ended question that does exactly that, and quite frankly, given the topic of the OP, and your ID, I'm quite certain I would not have bothered to respond because I'm quite certain that you aren't interested in doing anything other than advancing your own position.

Hell, you aren't even willing to receive a direct and clear answer to your question and be done. You now have my answer to your question. My answer is neither more nor less than what I wrote, yet you keep "pushing" as though I've got something different or else to say in response to your question.

In closing, let me remind you a pair of remarks we both earlier shared.

it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

I think we both agree on that part of your comments.

Apparently, I was and have since been too subtle for you. Let me spell for you now what I hinted at earlier. Our conversation in this thread is done. I merely wanted to answer your question. That's it.

 

[Chuz Life]

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

If I were try connect your body to mine in such a way that you will die if that connection is broken at any time prior to a nine months cutoff point. . .

Would you or would you not have the legal right to remain connected to my body for the full nine months.

Yes or no?

Yes you would or no, you would not.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

The first words of my original post in this thread directly and unequivocally answered the question you asked. I will repeat both the question I answered and my answer to it:

[

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?"

I don't have and will not give a different answer, no matter how many times or ways you ask the question. I know exactly what you asked and I know what I think about the situation as you presented it.

You are obviously having trouble with my comparison/ allegory.

I had no trouble at all with your allegory. I submit that it is you who has trouble with the dissimilarity between the answer you'd give and that which I gave. Perhaps it is you who has trouble with the fact that I don't feel one iota of compassion for a thing that prior to one's acting in any given way "has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc?" Perhaps it is you who cannot understand that not everyone sees things as you do in a scenario that is, as you put it, about managing risk and the approaches one might adopt in doing so?

I can't say what exactly it is you don't understand; I cannot read your mind. What I can say is that the answer you got from should not be among the things you don't understand. I cannot be any more clear than "hell no."



I don't care what you think about my answer or about my ability to comprehend your OP. I didn't give you answer with any expectation that you like my answer. I don't seek your approbation or regard for the limits of my comprehension. I gave my answer. Like it or don't, but accept it or move on either way, because you asked for it and received my very "un-wishy-washy" answer.

If you are going to ask a question that, upon receiving an answer you don't like and your only retort is to accuse the responder of not understanding something, you perhaps shouldn't have asked the question you did.

That was a very nicely worded rant.

And if you want to believe that you would not have or should not have the legal right to maintain the connection to someone else's body if they were to connected theirs to yours in the way that I described in my questions? That's fine.

I just wanted to be sure all the angles were examined.

I obviously disagree with you, because I can not find it anywhere in our laws or in the Constitution . . . Where anyone has the right to use entrapment or especially accidental entrapment as an excuse / justification/ defense in the death of another human being.

Look, stop trying to "frame" and cast my answer. You asked the question and i gave you a very clear and highly literate answer to it. You don't need to tell me what I think or believe; I know that better than you. I told you what my position is on the matter about what you asked. Period.

This a forum for discussion. If you don't like seeing responses to your posts, you might consider not participating.

You have ample room and time to add to or to clarify your posts as you may want to.

Your answer to the question, so far, is still "hell no."

Correct?

If so, then my response is still the same too.

If you don't like seeing responses to your posts,

There's nothing to discuss. You asked a "yes or no" question and I provided my answer -- no -- along with how I arrived at that answer, which, though I shared that information, doesn't alter the fact that you asked a question to which the a direct answer is given by a binary set of choices. If you wanted to entreat for discussion, you should have asked an open ended question that does exactly that, and quite frankly, given the topic of the OP, and your ID, I'm quite certain I would not have bothered to respond because I'm quite certain that you aren't interested in doing anything other than advancing your own position.

Hell, you aren't even willing to receive a direct and clear answer to your question and be done. You now have my answer to your question. My answer is neither more nor less than what I wrote, yet you keep "pushing" as though I've got something different or else to say in response to your question.

In closing, let me remind you a pair of remarks we both earlier shared.

it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

I think we both agree on that part of your comments.

Apparently, I was and have since been too subtle for you. Let me spell for you now what I hinted at earlier. Our conversation in this thread is done. I merely wanted to answer your question. That's it.

The record shows that I have accepted your answer and I have provided my reasons for why I disagree with your answer.

I've not been "pushing" for anything more than that.

Have you?

 

[usmbguest5318]

The first words of my original post in this thread directly and unequivocally answered the question you asked. I will repeat both the question I answered and my answer to it:

[​

I don't have and will not give a different answer, no matter how many times or ways you ask the question. I know exactly what you asked and I know what I think about the situation as you presented it.

I had no trouble at all with your allegory. I submit that it is you who has trouble with the dissimilarity between the answer you'd give and that which I gave. Perhaps it is you who has trouble with the fact that I don't feel one iota of compassion for a thing that prior to one's acting in any given way "has no measurable brain waves to indicate any level of self awareness, No ability for thought, No sense of pain, etc?" Perhaps it is you who cannot understand that not everyone sees things as you do in a scenario that is, as you put it, about managing risk and the approaches one might adopt in doing so?

I can't say what exactly it is you don't understand; I cannot read your mind. What I can say is that the answer you got from should not be among the things you don't understand. I cannot be any more clear than "hell no."



I don't care what you think about my answer or about my ability to comprehend your OP. I didn't give you answer with any expectation that you like my answer. I don't seek your approbation or regard for the limits of my comprehension. I gave my answer. Like it or don't, but accept it or move on either way, because you asked for it and received my very "un-wishy-washy" answer.

If you are going to ask a question that, upon receiving an answer you don't like and your only retort is to accuse the responder of not understanding something, you perhaps shouldn't have asked the question you did.

That was a very nicely worded rant.

And if you want to believe that you would not have or should not have the legal right to maintain the connection to someone else's body if they were to connected theirs to yours in the way that I described in my questions? That's fine.

I just wanted to be sure all the angles were examined.

I obviously disagree with you, because I can not find it anywhere in our laws or in the Constitution . . . Where anyone has the right to use entrapment or especially accidental entrapment as an excuse / justification/ defense in the death of another human being.

Look, stop trying to "frame" and cast my answer. You asked the question and i gave you a very clear and highly literate answer to it. You don't need to tell me what I think or believe; I know that better than you. I told you what my position is on the matter about what you asked. Period.

This a forum for discussion. If you don't like seeing responses to your posts, you might consider not participating.

You have ample room and time to add to or to clarify your posts as you may want to.

Your answer to the question, so far, is still "hell no."

Correct?

If so, then my response is still the same too.

If you don't like seeing responses to your posts,

There's nothing to discuss. You asked a "yes or no" question and I provided my answer -- no -- along with how I arrived at that answer, which, though I shared that information, doesn't alter the fact that you asked a question to which the a direct answer is given by a binary set of choices. If you wanted to entreat for discussion, you should have asked an open ended question that does exactly that, and quite frankly, given the topic of the OP, and your ID, I'm quite certain I would not have bothered to respond because I'm quite certain that you aren't interested in doing anything other than advancing your own position.

Hell, you aren't even willing to receive a direct and clear answer to your question and be done. You now have my answer to your question. My answer is neither more nor less than what I wrote, yet you keep "pushing" as though I've got something different or else to say in response to your question.

In closing, let me remind you a pair of remarks we both earlier shared.

it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

I think we both agree on that part of your comments.

Apparently, I was and have since been too subtle for you. Let me spell for you now what I hinted at earlier. Our conversation in this thread is done. I merely wanted to answer your question. That's it.

The record shows that I have accepted your answer and I have provided my reasons for why I disagree with your answer.

I've not been "pushing" for anything more than that.

Have you?

The record shows that I have accepted your answer and I have provided my reasons for why I disagree with your answer.

Okay...I didn't desire, have an interest in discovering, or request that information, and had I, I indeed would have asked for it. But fine, you shared it.

I've not been "pushing" for anything more than that.

Sure. If you say so. I call your repeating the question and telling me I didn't understand the allegory "pushing." You don't call it that. Okay. Whatever.

 

[Chuz Life]

That was a very nicely worded rant.

And if you want to believe that you would not have or should not have the legal right to maintain the connection to someone else's body if they were to connected theirs to yours in the way that I described in my questions? That's fine.

I just wanted to be sure all the angles were examined.

I obviously disagree with you, because I can not find it anywhere in our laws or in the Constitution . . . Where anyone has the right to use entrapment or especially accidental entrapment as an excuse / justification/ defense in the death of another human being.

Look, stop trying to "frame" and cast my answer. You asked the question and i gave you a very clear and highly literate answer to it. You don't need to tell me what I think or believe; I know that better than you. I told you what my position is on the matter about what you asked. Period.

This a forum for discussion. If you don't like seeing responses to your posts, you might consider not participating.

You have ample room and time to add to or to clarify your posts as you may want to.

Your answer to the question, so far, is still "hell no."

Correct?

If so, then my response is still the same too.

If you don't like seeing responses to your posts,

There's nothing to discuss. You asked a "yes or no" question and I provided my answer -- no -- along with how I arrived at that answer, which, though I shared that information, doesn't alter the fact that you asked a question to which the a direct answer is given by a binary set of choices. If you wanted to entreat for discussion, you should have asked an open ended question that does exactly that, and quite frankly, given the topic of the OP, and your ID, I'm quite certain I would not have bothered to respond because I'm quite certain that you aren't interested in doing anything other than advancing your own position.

Hell, you aren't even willing to receive a direct and clear answer to your question and be done. You now have my answer to your question. My answer is neither more nor less than what I wrote, yet you keep "pushing" as though I've got something different or else to say in response to your question.

In closing, let me remind you a pair of remarks we both earlier shared.

it's not worth responding to your post in great detail.

I think we both agree on that part of your comments.

Apparently, I was and have since been too subtle for you. Let me spell for you now what I hinted at earlier. Our conversation in this thread is done. I merely wanted to answer your question. That's it.

The record shows that I have accepted your answer and I have provided my reasons for why I disagree with your answer.

I've not been "pushing" for anything more than that.

Have you?

The record shows that I have accepted your answer and I have provided my reasons for why I disagree with your answer.

Okay...I didn't desire, have an interest in discovering, or request that information, and had I, I indeed would have asked for it. But fine, you shared it.

I've not been "pushing" for anything more than that.

Sure. If you say so. I call your repeating the question and telling me I didn't understand the allegory "pushing." You don't call it that. Okay. Whatever.

Please tell your therapist that I am sorry I made you feel pushed.

 

[SeaGal]

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?

Obligated how?...morally, legally?

Morally - easy answer is yes.

Legally - not as clear-cut.

Though I believe the number of babies aborted in this country is appalling, that the practice is barbaric and anti-science...though I also believe it is a mucked up society whose laws protect the embryo of an eagle, but not that of a human...I could never support forcibly restraining a woman for nine months. Better to ensure wide spread availability of birth control, which it already is, advocate for responsible behavior which includes accepting responsibility for the results of ones behavior - and to counter the assertion that a fetus is just a collection of cells with sound science.

Never in the history of mankind has unwanted pregnancy been so easily preventable. Abortion should be decided at the state level. Some states have enacted fetal homicide laws - that will become a sticky wicket at some point.

The point another poster made concerning a man's role is thought provoking - having no say or rights to say yea or nay regarding an abortion is still held legally responsible for 18 years if the child is born. His only choice comes before conception. As in your scenario - the choice made by the person who gets physically attached also 'attaches or detaches' the other person - with or without their consent.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

Obligated how?...morally, legally?

Morally - easy answer is yes.

Legally - not as clear-cut.

Why not?

Though I believe the number of babies aborted in this country is appalling, that the practice is barbaric and anti-science...though I also believe it is a mucked up society whose laws protect the embryo of an eagle, but not that of a human...I could never support forcibly restraining a woman for nine months.

Who said anything about forcibly restraining anyone?

Please stick to the OP.

Better to ensure wide spread availability of birth control, which it already is, advocate for responsible behavior which includes accepting responsibility for the results of ones behavior - and to counter the assertion that a fetus is just a collection of cells with sound science.

Never in the history of mankind has unwanted pregnancy been so easily preventable. Abortion should be decided at the state level. Some states have enacted fetal homicide laws - that will become a sticky wicket at some point.

The point another poster made concerning a man's role is thought provoking - having no say or rights to say yea or nay regarding an abortion is still held legally responsible for 18 years if the child is born. His only choice comes before conception. As in your scenario - the choice made by the person who gets physically attached also 'attaches or detaches' the other person - with or without their consent.

That's a nice rant and I agree with some of it too.... but it has nothing or very little to do with the purpose and the subject of this thread. Please try harder to stay on topic.

Thanks.

 

[SeaGal]

Who said anything about forcibly restraining anyone?

Please stick to the OP.

I believe that a question to clarify meaning is a legitimate component of any discussion. Your scenario was an illustration of two adults knowingly engaging in an activity that causes one of them to become attached to, and responsible for a helpless child - is that not correct?

Even in a hypothetical question, such as yours, the means of obligation is absolutely relevant to the answer. Morally or legally? By choice or by law? (and all that 'by law' entails)

If that question is unacceptable within the parameters of your story - then I agree...we're done here.