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?

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?

Your comments about my analogy do not support your allegations. It is fair to consider the level of awareness of the participants, for example.

However, I would have thought that it would be obvious in that they "decided" to engage in the activity.

So, where is the fallacy?

There is none.

As for your observation about the couple being forced and how that would be analogous to rape? I can not agree more on that. . . and this analogy would very much be along the lines of how I too would draw attention to the differences and distinctions that you have noted.

 

[Coyote]

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?

I'm confused about you are asking us - which scenario?

In the analogy, the person chooses to become connected - willingly takes on the risks and challenges and responsibilities associated with that connection so there is a responsibility to see it through.

In your last paragraph it is not a free choice, regardless of the risks taken, and there is no obligation to follow through to the end.

 

[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?

Your comments about my analogy do not support your allegations. It is fair to consider the level of awareness of the participants, for example.

However, I would have thought that it would be obvious in that they "decided" to engage in the activity.

So, where is the fallacy?

There is none.

As for your observation about the couple being forced and how that would be analogous to rape? I can not agree more on that. . . and this analogy would very much be along the lines of how I too would draw attention to the differences and distinctions that you have noted.

My apologies, I should have inferred they knew walking into the clinic could or would bind them to the child.

 

[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.

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.

Yes, my answer is "yes." My answer is "yes" because were I the person to whom another willfully attached themselves, I'd want them to remain attached for nine months. Thus, I must remain attached for nine months if I willfully act so as to attach myself to another person.

The reasons I believe the person who connects themselves to the child must remain connected are outlined below. First I identify the situational assumptions I make with regard to things that are not made clear by the details provided. I follow the assumptions with my principles that I apply to the matter.

• Assumption: Individuals who encounter the child are aware, prior to taking any action, of the doctor's prognosis.
• Assumption: Individuals who encounter the child are aware, prior to taking any action, that certain acts will result in their becoming "biologically" attached to the child, and they know what those acts are that will have that outcome.
• Assumption: Biotechnology has not reached the point whereby humans can be created, "gestated," etc. and brought 100% from sperm and egg to fully developed infant/fetus (9 month stage of development) outside a woman's womb for the entirety of the developmental process/period.
• Principle: Anyone taking any action with regard to another who cannot act or communicate on their own behalf automatically assumes a degree of responsibility for the insensate/insentient person's well being and perhaps, depending on the action, existence. Thus by acting in a way that has a direct impact on the child's existence, they must do so in observance of the the "do no harm" standard.
• Principle: A person may elect to unilaterally increase their duty to another person. In certain situations, they may do so unilaterally. In others, they must obtain permission to do so.
  
• Principle: The "duty of care" carries a greater burden of responsibility and obligation than does the duty to "do no harm." Certain acts automatically increase one's onus from that of "do no harm" to that of a "duty of care." The "duty of care" is owed to persons when their fate is taken willfully by another into their own hands.
• Principle: Personhood and the rights thereof commence at the instant a fetus exits the womb. In the womb, one is a fetus; outside the womb one is an infant/baby. The difference between babies and fetuses is the quality of personhood.
• Principle: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
• There is no question of the child's status; it has been born from someone's womb. Therefore, at the time that it was encountered by the pair of observers, it exists in its own right as a person. Because it does exist as a person, it has the right to the "do no harm" minimum standard of regard by all other persons.
  
• Regardless of which individual did so and why, s/he voluntarily opted to engage in the activity that resulted in an activity that without question and if not performed to completion will result in the death of another person.
  
• Regardless of which individual did so and why, s/he willfully and voluntarily engaged in an activity that bound them to the child for nine months, and s/he did this in spite of and knowing the child would, even absent their intervention, "improve over time." The individual could have done nothing and thus incurred no obligation, but that is not what s/he did.
• Rather than simply leave the child be, or not perform the "attaching act," the individual willfully opted to perform the act that resulted in their becoming attached to the child for nine months, thereby willfully adding a new dimension of risk to their own existence and well being as well as that of the child. In performing that act, the "attacher" took "ownership" of the well being of the child as well as taking responsibility for mitigating and managing the risks to both their existence. In other words, by acting to attach him-/herself to another person, the "attacher" assumed, rightly or wrongly, a duty of care toward that person, in this case the child.

The above is how I've evaluated the scenario, and in light of that, the person has a . Others may have differing principles, may have made different assumptions, etc. and therefore arrived at a different conclusion.

 

[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?

I'm confused about you are asking us - which scenario?

There is only ONE scenario mentioned in the poll. The ONE where the person "manages to connect themself to the child in a way that breaking the connection before NINE months will almost certainly kill the child."

You are being intentionally obtuse. How else do you manage to become a "senior moderator" on this site and miss something as obvious as that?

In the analogy, the person chooses to become connected - willingly takes on the risks and challenges and responsibilities associated with that connection so there is a responsibility to see it through.

That comment shows that you do not comprehend the analogy in the least - EVEN THOUGH - it is spelled out in an elementary grade reading level.

The analogy clearly says that the couple assumed a risk for the chance of being connected to the child. The analogy does not say (nor suggest) that the " person chooses to become connected."


If you really are a "senior forum moderator" Why are you distorting and mischaracterizing my analogy like this?

In your last paragraph it is not a free choice, regardless of the risks taken, and there is no obligation to follow through to the end.

In the analogy, did the couple freely choose to 'assume the risks" for being connected to the child?

Yes or no?

If your answer is YES to that question. . .

Then answer the POLL. . . are they obligated in that case - to REMAIN connected to the child for the full Nine months?

Yes or no?

 

[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.

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.

Yes, my answer is "yes." My answer is "yes" because were I the person to whom another willfully attached themselves, I'd want them to remain attached for nine months. Thus, I must remain attached for nine months if I willfully act so as to attach myself to another person.

The reasons I believe the person who connects themselves to the child must remain connected are outlined below. First I identify the situational assumptions I make with regard to things that are not made clear by the details provided. I follow the assumptions with my principles that I apply to the matter.

• Assumption: Individuals who encounter the child are aware, prior to taking any action, of the doctor's prognosis.
• Assumption: Individuals who encounter the child are aware, prior to taking any action, that certain acts will result in their becoming "biologically" attached to the child, and they know what those acts are that will have that outcome.
• Assumption: Biotechnology has not reached the point whereby humans can be created, "gestated," etc. and brought 100% from sperm and egg to fully developed infant/fetus (9 month stage of development) outside a woman's womb for the entirety of the developmental process/period.
• Principle: Anyone taking any action with regard to another who cannot act or communicate on their own behalf automatically assumes a degree of responsibility for the insensate/insentient person's well being and perhaps, depending on the action, existence. Thus by acting in a way that has a direct impact on the child's existence, they must do so in observance of the the "do no harm" standard.
• Principle: A person may elect to unilaterally increase their duty to another person. In certain situations, they may do so unilaterally. In others, they must obtain permission to do so.
  
• Principle: The "duty of care" carries a greater burden of responsibility and obligation than does the duty to "do no harm." Certain acts automatically increase one's onus from that of "do no harm" to that of a "duty of care." The "duty of care" is owed to persons when their fate is taken willfully by another into their own hands.
• Principle: Personhood and the rights thereof commence at the instant a fetus exits the womb. In the womb, one is a fetus; outside the womb one is an infant/baby. The difference between babies and fetuses is the quality of personhood.
• Principle: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
• There is no question of the child's status; it has been born from someone's womb. Therefore, at the time that it was encountered by the pair of observers, it exists in its own right as a person. Because it does exist as a person, it has the right to the "do no harm" minimum standard of regard by all other persons.
  
• Regardless of which individual did so and why, s/he voluntarily opted to engage in the activity that resulted in an activity that without question and if not performed to completion will result in the death of another person.
  
• Regardless of which individual did so and why, s/he willfully and voluntarily engaged in an activity that bound them to the child for nine months, and s/he did this in spite of and knowing the child would, even absent their intervention, "improve over time." The individual could have done nothing and thus incurred no obligation, but that is not what s/he did.
• Rather than simply leave the child be, or not perform the "attaching act," the individual willfully opted to perform the act that resulted in their becoming attached to the child for nine months, thereby willfully adding a new dimension of risk to their own existence and well being as well as that of the child. In performing that act, the "attacher" took "ownership" of the well being of the child as well as taking responsibility for mitigating and managing the risks to both their existence. In other words, by acting to attach him-/herself to another person, the "attacher" assumed, rightly or wrongly, a duty of care toward that person, in this case the child.

The above is how I've evaluated the scenario, and in light of that, the person has a . Others may have differing principles, may have made different assumptions, etc. and therefore arrived at a different conclusion.

I wish I could click, "thank you, winner and informative" all at once - though I obviously disagree with you on the personhood portion of your comments. That was a very well thought out approach to the analogy. I wish that others would give my analogy even a fraction of the consideration that you obviously did.

 

[Coyote]

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?

I'm confused about you are asking us - which scenario?

There is only ONE scenario mentioned in the poll. The ONE where the person "manages to connect themself to the child in a way that breaking the connection before NINE months will almost certainly kill the child."

You are being intentionally obtuse. How else do you manage to become a "senior moderator" on this site and miss something as obvious as that?

In the analogy, the person chooses to become connected - willingly takes on the risks and challenges and responsibilities associated with that connection so there is a responsibility to see it through.

That comment shows that you do not comprehend the analogy in the least - EVEN THOUGH - it is spelled out in an elementary grade reading level.

The analogy clearly says that the couple assumed a risk for the chance of being connected to the child. The analogy does not say (nor suggest) that the " person chooses to become connected."


If you really are a "senior forum moderator" Why are you distorting and mischaracterizing my analogy like this?

In your last paragraph it is not a free choice, regardless of the risks taken, and there is no obligation to follow through to the end.

In the analogy, did the couple freely choose to 'assume the risks" for being connected to the child?

Yes or no?

If your answer is YES to that question. . .

Then answer the POLL. . . are they obligated in that case - to REMAIN connected to the child for the full Nine months?

Yes or no?

Your last paragraph stated:

"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?"

Not everyone is going to follow the very narrow path you are attempting to force them onto in order to get the answer you want.

EVERYTHING you do carries a risk.

Driving a car carries the risk that you will have an accident. If a child runs out in the street, and you hit it - assuming you were following the law and not driving recklessly - are you then responsible for it?

 

[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?

I'm confused about you are asking us - which scenario?

There is only ONE scenario mentioned in the poll. The ONE where the person "manages to connect themself to the child in a way that breaking the connection before NINE months will almost certainly kill the child."

You are being intentionally obtuse. How else do you manage to become a "senior moderator" on this site and miss something as obvious as that?

In the analogy, the person chooses to become connected - willingly takes on the risks and challenges and responsibilities associated with that connection so there is a responsibility to see it through.

That comment shows that you do not comprehend the analogy in the least - EVEN THOUGH - it is spelled out in an elementary grade reading level.

The analogy clearly says that the couple assumed a risk for the chance of being connected to the child. The analogy does not say (nor suggest) that the " person chooses to become connected."


If you really are a "senior forum moderator" Why are you distorting and mischaracterizing my analogy like this?

In your last paragraph it is not a free choice, regardless of the risks taken, and there is no obligation to follow through to the end.

In the analogy, did the couple freely choose to 'assume the risks" for being connected to the child?

Yes or no?

If your answer is YES to that question. . .

Then answer the POLL. . . are they obligated in that case - to REMAIN connected to the child for the full Nine months?

Yes or no?

Your last paragraph stated:

"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?"

Not everyone is going to follow the very narrow path you are attempting to force them onto in order to get the answer you want.

I have the power to FORCE people to answer a question now?

Wow.

I honestly thought the poll question was voluntary.

I honestly thought that if anyone didn't like the question, they could simply opt to ignore it or (gasp) explain why they voted some other way.

EVERYTHING you do carries a risk.

Thank YOU!

I agree!

Now. . . PLEASE answer the question. . . "if the result of that risk that you took is that you somehow connected yourself to the body of another individual in such a way that they will DIE if you sever that connection before nine months time. . . do they (in that situation) have a right to remain connected to your body for those nine months?"

Yes or no?

Driving a car carries the risk that you will have an accident. If a child runs out in the street, and you hit it - assuming you were following the law and not driving recklessly - are you then responsible for it?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

How is that in any way related to or comparable to my analogy where the child is near lifeless and incapable of placing the "driver of the car" in a situation such as the one you just described?

 

[Coyote]

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?

I'm confused about you are asking us - which scenario?

There is only ONE scenario mentioned in the poll. The ONE where the person "manages to connect themself to the child in a way that breaking the connection before NINE months will almost certainly kill the child."

You are being intentionally obtuse. How else do you manage to become a "senior moderator" on this site and miss something as obvious as that?

In the analogy, the person chooses to become connected - willingly takes on the risks and challenges and responsibilities associated with that connection so there is a responsibility to see it through.

That comment shows that you do not comprehend the analogy in the least - EVEN THOUGH - it is spelled out in an elementary grade reading level.

The analogy clearly says that the couple assumed a risk for the chance of being connected to the child. The analogy does not say (nor suggest) that the " person chooses to become connected."


If you really are a "senior forum moderator" Why are you distorting and mischaracterizing my analogy like this?

In your last paragraph it is not a free choice, regardless of the risks taken, and there is no obligation to follow through to the end.

In the analogy, did the couple freely choose to 'assume the risks" for being connected to the child?

Yes or no?

If your answer is YES to that question. . .

Then answer the POLL. . . are they obligated in that case - to REMAIN connected to the child for the full Nine months?

Yes or no?

Your last paragraph stated:

"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?"

Not everyone is going to follow the very narrow path you are attempting to force them onto in order to get the answer you want.

I have the power to FORCE people to answer a question now?

Wow.

I honestly thought the poll question was voluntary.

I honestly thought that if anyone didn't like the question, they could simply opt to ignore it or (gasp) explain why they voted some other way.

EVERYTHING you do carries a risk.

Thank YOU!

I agree!

Now. . . PLEASE answer the question. . . "if the result of that risk that you took is that you somehow connected yourself to the body of another individual in such a way that they will DIE if you sever that connection before nine months time. . . do they (in that situation) have a right to remain connected to your body for those nine months?"

Yes or no?

Driving a car carries the risk that you will have an accident. If a child runs out in the street, and you hit it - assuming you were following the law and not driving recklessly - are you then responsible for it?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

How is that in any way related to or comparable to my analogy where the child is near lifeless and incapable of placing the "driver of the car" in a situation such as the one you just described?

My answer is that I agree with what 320 years wrote.

 

[320 Years of History]

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?

I'm confused about you are asking us - which scenario?

There is only ONE scenario mentioned in the poll. The ONE where the person "manages to connect themself to the child in a way that breaking the connection before NINE months will almost certainly kill the child."

You are being intentionally obtuse. How else do you manage to become a "senior moderator" on this site and miss something as obvious as that?

In the analogy, the person chooses to become connected - willingly takes on the risks and challenges and responsibilities associated with that connection so there is a responsibility to see it through.

That comment shows that you do not comprehend the analogy in the least - EVEN THOUGH - it is spelled out in an elementary grade reading level.

The analogy clearly says that the couple assumed a risk for the chance of being connected to the child. The analogy does not say (nor suggest) that the " person chooses to become connected."


If you really are a "senior forum moderator" Why are you distorting and mischaracterizing my analogy like this?

In your last paragraph it is not a free choice, regardless of the risks taken, and there is no obligation to follow through to the end.

In the analogy, did the couple freely choose to 'assume the risks" for being connected to the child?

Yes or no?

If your answer is YES to that question. . .

Then answer the POLL. . . are they obligated in that case - to REMAIN connected to the child for the full Nine months?

Yes or no?

Your last paragraph stated:

"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?"

Not everyone is going to follow the very narrow path you are attempting to force them onto in order to get the answer you want.

EVERYTHING you do carries a risk.

Driving a car carries the risk that you will have an accident. If a child runs out in the street, and you hit it - assuming you were following the law and not driving recklessly - are you then responsible for it?

??? The OP-er presents what is made clear to be a allegorical and hypothetical scenario (the term used was analogy, but I think it pretty clear this is an allegory and not an analogy) that calls the reader to make a choice based on how they view the facts presented. There is nothing forcing one to do anything; one need not even respond to the question in the affirmative or negative, which frankly one should not do if one is uncertain of one's position on the matter as presented....In such cases the best answer a confused person can give is "I don't know."

 

[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.

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.

Yes, my answer is "yes." My answer is "yes" because were I the person to whom another willfully attached themselves, I'd want them to remain attached for nine months. Thus, I must remain attached for nine months if I willfully act so as to attach myself to another person.

The reasons I believe the person who connects themselves to the child must remain connected are outlined below. First I identify the situational assumptions I make with regard to things that are not made clear by the details provided. I follow the assumptions with my principles that I apply to the matter.

• Assumption: Individuals who encounter the child are aware, prior to taking any action, of the doctor's prognosis.
• Assumption: Individuals who encounter the child are aware, prior to taking any action, that certain acts will result in their becoming "biologically" attached to the child, and they know what those acts are that will have that outcome.
• Assumption: Biotechnology has not reached the point whereby humans can be created, "gestated," etc. and brought 100% from sperm and egg to fully developed infant/fetus (9 month stage of development) outside a woman's womb for the entirety of the developmental process/period.
• Principle: Anyone taking any action with regard to another who cannot act or communicate on their own behalf automatically assumes a degree of responsibility for the insensate/insentient person's well being and perhaps, depending on the action, existence. Thus by acting in a way that has a direct impact on the child's existence, they must do so in observance of the the "do no harm" standard.
• Principle: A person may elect to unilaterally increase their duty to another person. In certain situations, they may do so unilaterally. In others, they must obtain permission to do so.
  
• Principle: The "duty of care" carries a greater burden of responsibility and obligation than does the duty to "do no harm." Certain acts automatically increase one's onus from that of "do no harm" to that of a "duty of care." The "duty of care" is owed to persons when their fate is taken willfully by another into their own hands.
• Principle: Personhood and the rights thereof commence at the instant a fetus exits the womb. In the womb, one is a fetus; outside the womb one is an infant/baby. The difference between babies and fetuses is the quality of personhood.
• Principle: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
• There is no question of the child's status; it has been born from someone's womb. Therefore, at the time that it was encountered by the pair of observers, it exists in its own right as a person. Because it does exist as a person, it has the right to the "do no harm" minimum standard of regard by all other persons.
  
• Regardless of which individual did so and why, s/he voluntarily opted to engage in the activity that resulted in an activity that without question and if not performed to completion will result in the death of another person.
  
• Regardless of which individual did so and why, s/he willfully and voluntarily engaged in an activity that bound them to the child for nine months, and s/he did this in spite of and knowing the child would, even absent their intervention, "improve over time." The individual could have done nothing and thus incurred no obligation, but that is not what s/he did.
• Rather than simply leave the child be, or not perform the "attaching act," the individual willfully opted to perform the act that resulted in their becoming attached to the child for nine months, thereby willfully adding a new dimension of risk to their own existence and well being as well as that of the child. In performing that act, the "attacher" took "ownership" of the well being of the child as well as taking responsibility for mitigating and managing the risks to both their existence. In other words, by acting to attach him-/herself to another person, the "attacher" assumed, rightly or wrongly, a duty of care toward that person, in this case the child.

The above is how I've evaluated the scenario, and in light of that, the person has a . Others may have differing principles, may have made different assumptions, etc. and therefore arrived at a different conclusion.

I wish I could click, "thank you, winner and informative" all at once - though I obviously disagree with you on the personhood portion of your comments. That was a very well thought out approach to the analogy. I wish that others would give my analogy even a fraction of the consideration that you obviously did.

Red:
TY for accolade, especially doing so publicly.

Truly, I believe that were more folks to put similar levels of effort into explaining, sometimes exploring, their views, thoughts, and principles, our society would find we have more in common than less.

Blue:
Yes, I suspect you and I differ largely, as goes the theme of your scenario, on one thing: the point in time at which personhood begins, which for me is the determining factor for whether my answer is, at the most basic level, "yes" or "no." I realize you know that as well as I do.

One thing I can say is that although you and I differ on the matter of personhood and thus on the nature and extent of public policy concerning medically effected abortions, on a personal level, I really don't care which way the law goes. I don't personally care not because I'm male, but because my personal set of principles and beliefs wouldn't get me into a position of wanting/needing a woman whom I impregnated to abort the pregnancy. There are a number of tactical reasons for that, but at the root of it, my "do unto others..." principle, combined with my "do no harm" principle, just wouldn't allow me, barring pure accident (the condom breaks, "the pill" hasn't taken effect, etc.), to willfully or negligently put myself into a situation that makes the risk of impregnation higher than it need be.

The simple fact is I know I don't want any more kids, I know I'm fertile, I have not had a vasectomy, etc., and I don't know if the woman with whom I "hook up" wants kids, is on the pill, fertile, etc. I know what she tells me, but in my mind, creating a new life is not one of those things that one can "just trust" the word of another. To my mind, right now at least, having another child in the world that's mine would be harmful to me. The idea of "do no harm, well, that includes my doing no harm to myself. LOL I am a person too. LOL

 

[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?

I'm confused about you are asking us - which scenario?

There is only ONE scenario mentioned in the poll. The ONE where the person "manages to connect themself to the child in a way that breaking the connection before NINE months will almost certainly kill the child."

You are being intentionally obtuse. How else do you manage to become a "senior moderator" on this site and miss something as obvious as that?

In the analogy, the person chooses to become connected - willingly takes on the risks and challenges and responsibilities associated with that connection so there is a responsibility to see it through.

That comment shows that you do not comprehend the analogy in the least - EVEN THOUGH - it is spelled out in an elementary grade reading level.

The analogy clearly says that the couple assumed a risk for the chance of being connected to the child. The analogy does not say (nor suggest) that the " person chooses to become connected."


If you really are a "senior forum moderator" Why are you distorting and mischaracterizing my analogy like this?

In your last paragraph it is not a free choice, regardless of the risks taken, and there is no obligation to follow through to the end.

In the analogy, did the couple freely choose to 'assume the risks" for being connected to the child?

Yes or no?

If your answer is YES to that question. . .

Then answer the POLL. . . are they obligated in that case - to REMAIN connected to the child for the full Nine months?

Yes or no?

Your last paragraph stated:

"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?"

Not everyone is going to follow the very narrow path you are attempting to force them onto in order to get the answer you want.

EVERYTHING you do carries a risk.

Driving a car carries the risk that you will have an accident. If a child runs out in the street, and you hit it - assuming you were following the law and not driving recklessly - are you then responsible for it?

??? The OP-er presents what is made clear to be a allegorical and hypothetical scenario (the term used was analogy, but I think it pretty clear this is an allegory and not an analogy) that calls the reader to make a choice based on how they view the facts presented. There is nothing forcing one to do anything; one need not even respond to the question in the affirmative or negative, which frankly one should not do if one is uncertain of one's position on the matter as presented....In such cases the best answer a confused person can give is "I don't know."

I do in fact remember the difference now between an analogy and an allegory (now that you mentioned it) and you are right. . . my comparison is more an allegory than it is an analogy.

"Some analogies can be quite intricate and detailed, showing how each part of the one thing corresponds to a part of the other. However, while an analogy might compare parts of two objects, by definition it does not tell a story.

An allegory, on the other hand, does exactly that. It tells a story. This story has two meanings. One meaning is the surface meaning. However, each element of the surface meaning of the story represents something else, usually a deeper truth about the human condition."

Good catch.

 

[320 Years of History]

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?

I'm confused about you are asking us - which scenario?

There is only ONE scenario mentioned in the poll. The ONE where the person "manages to connect themself to the child in a way that breaking the connection before NINE months will almost certainly kill the child."

You are being intentionally obtuse. How else do you manage to become a "senior moderator" on this site and miss something as obvious as that?

In the analogy, the person chooses to become connected - willingly takes on the risks and challenges and responsibilities associated with that connection so there is a responsibility to see it through.

That comment shows that you do not comprehend the analogy in the least - EVEN THOUGH - it is spelled out in an elementary grade reading level.

The analogy clearly says that the couple assumed a risk for the chance of being connected to the child. The analogy does not say (nor suggest) that the " person chooses to become connected."


If you really are a "senior forum moderator" Why are you distorting and mischaracterizing my analogy like this?

In your last paragraph it is not a free choice, regardless of the risks taken, and there is no obligation to follow through to the end.

In the analogy, did the couple freely choose to 'assume the risks" for being connected to the child?

Yes or no?

If your answer is YES to that question. . .

Then answer the POLL. . . are they obligated in that case - to REMAIN connected to the child for the full Nine months?

Yes or no?

Your last paragraph stated:

"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?"

Not everyone is going to follow the very narrow path you are attempting to force them onto in order to get the answer you want.

EVERYTHING you do carries a risk.

Driving a car carries the risk that you will have an accident. If a child runs out in the street, and you hit it - assuming you were following the law and not driving recklessly - are you then responsible for it?

??? The OP-er presents what is made clear to be a allegorical and hypothetical scenario (the term used was analogy, but I think it pretty clear this is an allegory and not an analogy) that calls the reader to make a choice based on how they view the facts presented. There is nothing forcing one to do anything; one need not even respond to the question in the affirmative or negative, which frankly one should not do if one is uncertain of one's position on the matter as presented....In such cases the best answer a confused person can give is "I don't know."

I do in fact remember the difference now between an analogy and an allegory (now that you mentioned it) and you are right. . . my comparison is more an allegory than it is an analogy.

"Some analogies can be quite intricate and detailed, showing how each part of the one thing corresponds to a part of the other. However, while an analogy might compare parts of two objects, by definition it does not tell a story.

An allegory, on the other hand, does exactly that. It tells a story. This story has two meanings. One meaning is the surface meaning. However, each element of the surface meaning of the story represents something else, usually a deeper truth about the human condition."

Good catch.

NP...The scenario is what it is and knowing whether it's a metaphor, allegory, analogy, etc. isn't pertinent to one's answer. I didn't see a need to bring it up earlier, but the other member's remarks make it seem relevant to do so. It still may not have been all that critical to note the distinction....

 

[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?

I'm confused about you are asking us - which scenario?

There is only ONE scenario mentioned in the poll. The ONE where the person "manages to connect themself to the child in a way that breaking the connection before NINE months will almost certainly kill the child."

You are being intentionally obtuse. How else do you manage to become a "senior moderator" on this site and miss something as obvious as that?

In the analogy, the person chooses to become connected - willingly takes on the risks and challenges and responsibilities associated with that connection so there is a responsibility to see it through.

That comment shows that you do not comprehend the analogy in the least - EVEN THOUGH - it is spelled out in an elementary grade reading level.

The analogy clearly says that the couple assumed a risk for the chance of being connected to the child. The analogy does not say (nor suggest) that the " person chooses to become connected."


If you really are a "senior forum moderator" Why are you distorting and mischaracterizing my analogy like this?

In your last paragraph it is not a free choice, regardless of the risks taken, and there is no obligation to follow through to the end.

In the analogy, did the couple freely choose to 'assume the risks" for being connected to the child?

Yes or no?

If your answer is YES to that question. . .

Then answer the POLL. . . are they obligated in that case - to REMAIN connected to the child for the full Nine months?

Yes or no?

Your last paragraph stated:

"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?"

Not everyone is going to follow the very narrow path you are attempting to force them onto in order to get the answer you want.

I have the power to FORCE people to answer a question now?

Wow.

I honestly thought the poll question was voluntary.

I honestly thought that if anyone didn't like the question, they could simply opt to ignore it or (gasp) explain why they voted some other way.

EVERYTHING you do carries a risk.

Thank YOU!

I agree!

Now. . . PLEASE answer the question. . . "if the result of that risk that you took is that you somehow connected yourself to the body of another individual in such a way that they will DIE if you sever that connection before nine months time. . . do they (in that situation) have a right to remain connected to your body for those nine months?"

Yes or no?

Driving a car carries the risk that you will have an accident. If a child runs out in the street, and you hit it - assuming you were following the law and not driving recklessly - are you then responsible for it?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

How is that in any way related to or comparable to my analogy where the child is near lifeless and incapable of placing the "driver of the car" in a situation such as the one you just described?

My answer is that I agree with what 320 years wrote.

If you agree with what 320 wrote. . . How do you explain the fact that he voted Yes on the poll and you voted No? .

 

[Coyote]

I'm confused about you are asking us - which scenario?

There is only ONE scenario mentioned in the poll. The ONE where the person "manages to connect themself to the child in a way that breaking the connection before NINE months will almost certainly kill the child."

You are being intentionally obtuse. How else do you manage to become a "senior moderator" on this site and miss something as obvious as that?

In the analogy, the person chooses to become connected - willingly takes on the risks and challenges and responsibilities associated with that connection so there is a responsibility to see it through.

That comment shows that you do not comprehend the analogy in the least - EVEN THOUGH - it is spelled out in an elementary grade reading level.

The analogy clearly says that the couple assumed a risk for the chance of being connected to the child. The analogy does not say (nor suggest) that the " person chooses to become connected."


If you really are a "senior forum moderator" Why are you distorting and mischaracterizing my analogy like this?

In your last paragraph it is not a free choice, regardless of the risks taken, and there is no obligation to follow through to the end.

In the analogy, did the couple freely choose to 'assume the risks" for being connected to the child?

Yes or no?

If your answer is YES to that question. . .

Then answer the POLL. . . are they obligated in that case - to REMAIN connected to the child for the full Nine months?

Yes or no?

Your last paragraph stated:

"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?"

Not everyone is going to follow the very narrow path you are attempting to force them onto in order to get the answer you want.

I have the power to FORCE people to answer a question now?

Wow.

I honestly thought the poll question was voluntary.

I honestly thought that if anyone didn't like the question, they could simply opt to ignore it or (gasp) explain why they voted some other way.

EVERYTHING you do carries a risk.

Thank YOU!

I agree!

Now. . . PLEASE answer the question. . . "if the result of that risk that you took is that you somehow connected yourself to the body of another individual in such a way that they will DIE if you sever that connection before nine months time. . . do they (in that situation) have a right to remain connected to your body for those nine months?"

Yes or no?

Driving a car carries the risk that you will have an accident. If a child runs out in the street, and you hit it - assuming you were following the law and not driving recklessly - are you then responsible for it?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

How is that in any way related to or comparable to my analogy where the child is near lifeless and incapable of placing the "driver of the car" in a situation such as the one you just described?

My answer is that I agree with what 320 years wrote.

If you agree with what 320 wrote. . . How do you explain the fact that he voted Yes on the poll and you voted No? .

Because I voted, not on the literal scenario you presented but on the hidden meaning. Mea Culpa.

 

[Chuz Life]

There is only ONE scenario mentioned in the poll. The ONE where the person "manages to connect themself to the child in a way that breaking the connection before NINE months will almost certainly kill the child."

You are being intentionally obtuse. How else do you manage to become a "senior moderator" on this site and miss something as obvious as that?

That comment shows that you do not comprehend the analogy in the least - EVEN THOUGH - it is spelled out in an elementary grade reading level.

The analogy clearly says that the couple assumed a risk for the chance of being connected to the child. The analogy does not say (nor suggest) that the " person chooses to become connected."


If you really are a "senior forum moderator" Why are you distorting and mischaracterizing my analogy like this?

In the analogy, did the couple freely choose to 'assume the risks" for being connected to the child?

Yes or no?

If your answer is YES to that question. . .

Then answer the POLL. . . are they obligated in that case - to REMAIN connected to the child for the full Nine months?

Yes or no?

Your last paragraph stated:

"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?"

Not everyone is going to follow the very narrow path you are attempting to force them onto in order to get the answer you want.

I have the power to FORCE people to answer a question now?

Wow.

I honestly thought the poll question was voluntary.

I honestly thought that if anyone didn't like the question, they could simply opt to ignore it or (gasp) explain why they voted some other way.

EVERYTHING you do carries a risk.

Thank YOU!

I agree!

Now. . . PLEASE answer the question. . . "if the result of that risk that you took is that you somehow connected yourself to the body of another individual in such a way that they will DIE if you sever that connection before nine months time. . . do they (in that situation) have a right to remain connected to your body for those nine months?"

Yes or no?

Driving a car carries the risk that you will have an accident. If a child runs out in the street, and you hit it - assuming you were following the law and not driving recklessly - are you then responsible for it?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

How is that in any way related to or comparable to my analogy where the child is near lifeless and incapable of placing the "driver of the car" in a situation such as the one you just described?

My answer is that I agree with what 320 years wrote.

If you agree with what 320 wrote. . . How do you explain the fact that he voted Yes on the poll and you voted No? .

Because I voted, not on the literal scenario you presented but on the hidden meaning. Mea Culpa.

Are you aware that you can change your vote? That setting has been enabled for this poll.

 

[Coyote]

Your last paragraph stated:

"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?"

Not everyone is going to follow the very narrow path you are attempting to force them onto in order to get the answer you want.

I have the power to FORCE people to answer a question now?

Wow.

I honestly thought the poll question was voluntary.

I honestly thought that if anyone didn't like the question, they could simply opt to ignore it or (gasp) explain why they voted some other way.

EVERYTHING you do carries a risk.

Thank YOU!

I agree!

Now. . . PLEASE answer the question. . . "if the result of that risk that you took is that you somehow connected yourself to the body of another individual in such a way that they will DIE if you sever that connection before nine months time. . . do they (in that situation) have a right to remain connected to your body for those nine months?"

Yes or no?

Driving a car carries the risk that you will have an accident. If a child runs out in the street, and you hit it - assuming you were following the law and not driving recklessly - are you then responsible for it?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

How is that in any way related to or comparable to my analogy where the child is near lifeless and incapable of placing the "driver of the car" in a situation such as the one you just described?

My answer is that I agree with what 320 years wrote.

If you agree with what 320 wrote. . . How do you explain the fact that he voted Yes on the poll and you voted No? .

Because I voted, not on the literal scenario you presented but on the hidden meaning. Mea Culpa.

Are you aware that you can change your vote? That setting has been enabled for this poll.

No I wasn't.

 

[jwoodie]

I think the "connection" analogy is weak. After all, we aren't talking about a 4th Amendment search and seizure issue. Just because a baby happens to be living inside the womb of a woman doesn't give her any right to terminate that life. When considering when life begins, shouldn't we err on the side of mercy?

 

[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.

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.

Or go to the clinic and get 'the pill.' Or use many other methods of birth control.

I reiterate, birth control is available to anyone that wants it.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think the "connection" analogy is weak. After all, we aren't talking about a 4th Amendment search and seizure issue. Just because a baby happens to be living inside the womb of a woman doesn't give her any right to terminate that life. When considering when life begins, shouldn't we err on the side of mercy?

While I think I agree with your conclusion and probably your views about mercy and all. . . Your comment makes me think you did not really understand my analogy/ allegory very well.