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

[Chuz Life]

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?

 

[jwoodie]

Analogies are so much easier to deal with than the bodies of dead children.

 

[Chuz Life]

Analogies are so much easier to deal with than the bodies of dead children.

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.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

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?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Then you would answer yes as there is no qualifier added to the no option. So go ahead and tell us what your qualifier would be.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

This is a rather silly statement. Birth control IS available to anyone that wants it - in spades.

 

[Chuz Life]

This thread is about creating an analogy for pregnancy and the poll is about what the responsibility is of someone who connects them self in a way such as the analogy details. . . All this talk about birth control and sexism is being reported as attempts to derail the thread.

Why is it asking too much for people to either stay on topic if you post or don't post anything at all until you have something to say that IS on topic?

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

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?

I knew you'd respond that way.

I can do and I will. I haven't time right this moment to do so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The poll is inadequately crafted.

Keeping a pregnancy is far more complex than an either or situation.

Thus the poll is flawed.

 

[Chuz Life]

The poll is inadequately crafted.

Keeping a pregnancy is far more complex than an either or situation.

Thus the poll is flawed.

Do you have any idea about what an analogy IS?

NEVERMIND.

It is perfectly clear that you don’t.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

This is a rather silly statement. Birth control IS available to anyone that wants it - in spades.

Reliable birth control? Yeah, anyone can go down to the corner store and buy a pack of condoms, but do you know what their reliability rate is, even when used properly?

I didn't say birth control, I said RELIABLE birth control.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Attempting to create an analogy for abortion is cowardice. If you want to discuss abortion, discuss abortion. Stop trying to construct these absurd traps, designed to prove the incontrovertible logic of your position. Either prove that the net affect of allowing abortion is worse than the net affect of banning it, or forget it.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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?

The biggest fallacy I see in your analogy is the level of awareness the 2 people have regarding the consequences of gaining access to the comatose child. Are they aware that by walking into the clinic they will or could become bound to the child? If you assume they are, then they have consented by their actions to bear that responsibility. Another twist to your analogy- assume the same 2 people are kidnapped, taken to the clinic and bound to the child, completely against their will ( read rapped). Now what is their level of responsibility and/or liability?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

Unfortunately the only fool proof birth control is abstinence. And an abstinent person can still be raped. Problem unsolved.