Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Thomson's Violinist Analogy for Abortion

Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 9:11:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 8:48:14 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Discuss. Strengths/weaknesses?

This: http://www.l4l.org...
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 11:07:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 9:11:06 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 4/2/2015 8:48:14 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Discuss. Strengths/weaknesses?

This: http://www.l4l.org...

Libertarians for life = libertarians for forced continuation of pregnancy from the moment of conception

I don't think so.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 12:48:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 9:11:06 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 4/2/2015 8:48:14 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Discuss. Strengths/weaknesses?

This: http://www.l4l.org...

1. The first objection in the article is not really an argument against abortion per se. But rather the type of method that is used. Abortions like hysterotomy and RU-486 do not kill the fetus but rather remove it and let it die.

2. How exactly does the woman consent to let the fetus use her body?

3. I don't see how causing the fetus to now exist means the woman has a moral obligation to let it use her body.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 12:49:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 11:03:02 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
It is a blatant strawman and terrible analogy.

How is it a strawman/terrible analogy?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 9:05:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 11:07:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/2/2015 9:11:06 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 4/2/2015 8:48:14 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Discuss. Strengths/weaknesses?

This: http://www.l4l.org...

Libertarians for life = libertarians for forced continuation of pregnancy from the moment of conception

I don't think so.

If you consider laws against killing children in the womb to be an act of "forced continuation of pregnancy from the moment of conception". . . Do you regard laws against other forms of child molestation to be an act of forced abstinence against child molesters?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 9:15:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 12:48:38 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/2/2015 9:11:06 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 4/2/2015 8:48:14 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Discuss. Strengths/weaknesses?

This: http://www.l4l.org...

1. The first objection in the article is not really an argument against abortion per se. But rather the type of method that is used. Abortions like hysterotomy and RU-486 do not kill the fetus but rather remove it and let it die.

Are you seriously denying the fact that aborted children are intentionally killed in the process of an abortion? We have actual abortionists testifying on record to the fact that the child is intentionally killed.

2. How exactly does the woman consent to let the fetus use her body?

By creating the relationship (along with the help of her partner) herself.


3. I don't see how causing the fetus to now exist means the woman has a moral obligation to let it use her body.

That may be because you don't recognize the child in the womb as another person.

If you broke into a hospital somewhere and connected yourself to a child who is maybe in a coma. . . and you connected yourself in such a way that the child would surely die if you broke that connection before nine months. . . You don't think you would be or should be morally and legally obligated to maintain that connection?

You don't think you would be charged with murder - if you decided to severe the connection and let the child die?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 12:31:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thanks for responding to my points Chuz-Life. I enjoy talking about this argument with others.

"Are you seriously denying the fact that aborted children are intentionally killed in the process of an abortion? We have actual abortionists testifying on record to the fact that the child is intentionally killed." -Chuz-Life

I agree there are abortions that kill the fetus via dismemberment. But this isn't an argument abortion but rather the method used. This is because there are other types of abortion that don't involve attacking the body of the fetus. But instead have it removed from the womb where it will then die from exposure.

"By creating the relationship (along with the help of her partner) herself." -Chuz-Life

Let's say that you walk into the hospital and you see the violinist laying there comatose in the bed. The doctor explains to you that he needs your body for the next 9 months if he is to go on living. Once this is explained to you, you then go into his room and voluntarily lay down next to him and the doctor plugs you into the violinist. However, after a week you start to realize that being plugged into the violinist is too burdensome, and now you wish to unplug even though that will cause his death. But then the doctor says to you "No, you can't unplug. This is because by voluntarily laying down you have created a relationship (along with the help of the doctor) herself. Therefore, you can't unplug. But surely this argument made by the doctor is silly. Just because you created a relationship with the violinist, doesn't mean you have consented to continue giving him life support for 9 months.

"That may be because you don't recognize the child in the womb as another person."
-Chuz-Life

Actually no, that's not true. The violinist analogy assumes for the sake of argument that the fetus is a person with the same right to life as you or I.

"If you broke into a hospital somewhere and connected yourself to a child who is maybe in a coma. . . and you connected yourself in such a way that the child would surely die if you broke that connection before nine months. . . You don't think you would be or should be morally and legally obligated to maintain that connection?"
-Chuz-Life

If understand your objection correctly, I think you're saying that when I connect myself to the child in the coma, I cause him to be needy. For example, let's say that by connecting myself to the child I gave him a kidney ailment. In that case I agree it would be wrong for me to unplug. This is because I harmed the child by giving him the kidney ailment and I made him worse off than he was before. Therefore I now owe him compensation. However, the pregnancy case seems different. It's true that by conceiving a fetus the woman has caused it to exist with the result that it is needy, but the act of conceiving the fetus didn't harm it or make it worse off like in the case where I caused the coma child to get a kidney ailment. For that reason, I don't think the objection applies to pregnancy.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 9:30:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 9:05:18 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 4/2/2015 11:07:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/2/2015 9:11:06 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 4/2/2015 8:48:14 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Discuss. Strengths/weaknesses?

This: http://www.l4l.org...

Libertarians for life = libertarians for forced continuation of pregnancy from the moment of conception

I don't think so.

If you consider laws against killing children in the womb to be an act of "forced continuation of pregnancy from the moment of conception". . . Do you regard laws against other forms of child molestation to be an act of forced abstinence against child molesters?

We have being over this Chuz. A 3 day human embryo in my view is not morally equivalent to a 5 year old child.

If your going to force a woman to continue a pregnancy regardless of what point that pregnancy is at, you had better have a f*Cking good argument for it.

What have you got chuz ? a throw around line about well it's a "child" too.

So woman everywhere in your book have no choice what so ever from the moment of conception cause of a definition move of the word "child".

If that's the best you got Chuz, considering the freedom you want to see taken away from woman, in my book that makes you a f*cking a%%hat.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 7:02:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 8:48:14 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Discuss. Strengths/weaknesses?

At first glance I found it quite compelling. But in my opinion a big problem I have with it is that it ignores the fact that the woman is (assuming consensual sex) 50% responsible for putting the "violinist" in the position of needing her body in the first place. Granted, the fetus wouldn't even exist without her putting it in that position, but the fact remains that (again, assuming consent) she has, knowing it was a risk, put a person in the position of needing her body to live simultaneous to "attaching" herself to it. That's why it's different than, say, a violinist lying there in bed and you temporarily attach yourself to him and then decide not to.

It's why I think the abortion debate really should boil down to consent and personhood. If the action (sex) was nonconsensual (rape), then the woman would have no ethical obligation whatsoever, having been forced into that position against her will.

If it was consensual sex (assuming no fraud, either), then the question would seem to me to be whether it's a person. If it's not a person: No moral obligation. If it is a person, then you have a person that you and another person have attached to you in such a way that they'll die if you disconnect. It seems in that circumstance that it would be akin to poisoning someone, then holding back the antidote--if you didn't poison them, you don't necessarily owe them the antidote, but if you did I think a case could pretty easily be made that holding it back is a moral wrong.

That said, I 1, don't think that the fetus is a person, 2, think that the burden is on those claiming it IS a person to definitively prove that it is, and 3, think that bodily autonomy is important enough that we should always be erring on the side of granting it to known persons over hypotheticals.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 10:25:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 7:02:02 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/2/2015 8:48:14 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Discuss. Strengths/weaknesses?

"At first glance I found it quite compelling. But in my opinion a big problem I have with it is that it ignores the fact that the woman is (assuming consensual sex) 50% responsible for putting the "violinist" in the position of needing her body in the first place. Granted, the fetus wouldn't even exist without her putting it in that position, but the fact remains that (again, assuming consent) she has, knowing it was a risk, put a person in the position of needing her body to live simultaneous to "attaching" herself to it. That's why it's different than, say, a violinist lying there in bed and you temporarily attach yourself to him and then decide not to."
-bladerunner060

Right, so this is again somebody using the responsibility objection against Thomson's argument. It's true that the woman is responsible for the fact the fetus now needs her body to go on living, but I don't see how this generates a moral obligation on her to gestate it for 9 months. By conceiving a fetus the woman is not causing it to be needy rather than not needy, she is causing the fetus to be needy rather than not to existence.

"If it is a person, then you have a person that you and another person have attached to you in such a way that they'll die if you disconnect. It seems in that circumstance that it would be akin to poisoning someone, then holding back the antidote--if you didn't poison them, you don't necessarily owe them the antidote, but if you did I think a case could pretty easily be made that holding it back is a moral wrong."
-bladerunner060

If you poison someone then yes, I would agree they now have a right to use your body. This is because you harmed them and caused that person to be worse off than they were before. The pregnancy case is different, though. By conceiving the fetus the woman has not caused it harm like in the case where you poison someone, and for that reason I don't think she has acquired a moral obligation to gestate the fetus until birth.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 11:15:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 10:25:06 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/4/2015 7:02:02 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/2/2015 8:48:14 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Discuss. Strengths/weaknesses?

"At first glance I found it quite compelling. But in my opinion a big problem I have with it is that it ignores the fact that the woman is (assuming consensual sex) 50% responsible for putting the "violinist" in the position of needing her body in the first place. Granted, the fetus wouldn't even exist without her putting it in that position, but the fact remains that (again, assuming consent) she has, knowing it was a risk, put a person in the position of needing her body to live simultaneous to "attaching" herself to it. That's why it's different than, say, a violinist lying there in bed and you temporarily attach yourself to him and then decide not to."
-bladerunner060


Right, so this is again somebody using the responsibility objection against Thomson's argument. It's true that the woman is responsible for the fact the fetus now needs her body to go on living, but I don't see how this generates a moral obligation on her to gestate it for 9 months. By conceiving a fetus the woman is not causing it to be needy rather than not needy, she is causing the fetus to be needy rather than not to existence.

"If it is a person, then you have a person that you and another person have attached to you in such a way that they'll die if you disconnect. It seems in that circumstance that it would be akin to poisoning someone, then holding back the antidote--if you didn't poison them, you don't necessarily owe them the antidote, but if you did I think a case could pretty easily be made that holding it back is a moral wrong."
-bladerunner060

If you poison someone then yes, I would agree they now have a right to use your body. This is because you harmed them and caused that person to be worse off than they were before. The pregnancy case is different, though. By conceiving the fetus the woman has not caused it harm like in the case where you poison someone, and for that reason I don't think she has acquired a moral obligation to gestate the fetus until birth.

Just so you know, it appends the "XXX said" to the beginning of the post when you reply, so you don't have to put my name after the statement. Also, if you want to block-quote, you can just put a colon and then a space at the beginning of the paragraph, and that will automatically indent and blockquote for you:

Like so.

You can even use multiple colons in a row to block in more than once:

(x5) Like so.

So if you're pulling a quote from me, you can always just do that. It just reads weird to have you fully quote using the blockquote, which attributes, then attribute it, then requote me and attribute again.

Anyway, moving on to your response, the fact remains that she is putting the being in the position of needing her body. She is the one doing it (for the sake of simplicity and the reality of the situation, wherein this is a consequence which only falls on women, I may not note the dude every time, though it's worth noting that he is equally responsible).

Let me reiterate I don't think that a small collection of cells like a zygote is a person, so this point is irrelevant to the reality.

That said, if we assume for the sake of argument that it IS a person, then your objection fails. If it's a person, her actions (and that of the man) have put the person in that position. That's how person-making works. It's a known consequence of the action. So, they did a thing, a known consequence of which was to put what we're considering, for the sake of argument, to be a person on moral level with a "real" person, in a position wherein it requires the woman's body to keep living. To then withhold that is to put a person in a position wherein they need something, and then withholding that thing they need.

To argue that the nonexistence is of necessity somehow "worse" than any existence is absurd--for example, if you create a being that's in constant agony/on fire or whatnot, you're kind of a terrible person. That's not what's happening here, of course--here you're creating a being that needs you to survive, and you create it knowing that, and if you then refuse to follow through, I think the case is trivial that you are in the moral wrong for doing that, and I really don't see a difference in the poison analogy except in the point that the being didn't exist prior to your creating it.

If we wanted to improve the analogy, let's say I create a test-tube being, that's a full person for this discussion, and it's poisoned by my design, and I have the antidote. Am I in the wrong for withholding that antidote? I would say it would be pretty obvious that I was--that I owed it to this thing I created.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:20:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 11:03:02 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
It is a blatant strawman and terrible analogy.

It's not a blatant strawman in the sense that it describes the situation of rape very well. But, Thomson essay isn't just one example. So many people tend to think the violinist example is her entire argument against abortion--but it's not. It's one of a series of arguments in the same essay.

While I ultimately am pro-life, her essay is perhaps one of the most compelling pro-choice arguments out there.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:36:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 1:20:46 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/2/2015 11:03:02 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
It is a blatant strawman and terrible analogy.

It's not a blatant strawman in the sense that it describes the situation of rape very well.

She tries to apply it to abortion as a whole, and that is the blatant strawman. Also, even if applied only to rape cases the analogy is still a false representation of reality.

But, Thomson essay isn't just one example. So many people tend to think the violinist example is her entire argument against abortion--but it's not. It's one of a series of arguments in the same essay.

The other stuff is bad to. At first appearance it seems strong, but once you really delve into it they are all just a strawman that plays on your emotions.

While I ultimately am pro-life, her essay is perhaps one of the most compelling pro-choice arguments out there.
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:10:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 12:48:38 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/2/2015 9:11:06 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

3. I don't see how causing the fetus to now exist means the woman has a moral obligation to let it use her body.

It's the moral equivalent of kidnapping a child, placing it in a cell without any food or water, and then saying "No, you may not use my door to get out!"
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:40:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:36:00 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 4/5/2015 1:20:46 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/2/2015 11:03:02 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
It is a blatant strawman and terrible analogy.

It's not a blatant strawman in the sense that it describes the situation of rape very well.

She tries to apply it to abortion as a whole, and that is the blatant strawman. Also, even if applied only to rape cases the analogy is still a false representation of reality.

Actually, you're wrong. She makes NO effort to apply the example beyond rape. In fact, she makes it very clear it is just about rape. People who read her essay misapply her example, but Thomson herself does not. The goal of her essay is to offer a variety of examples that apply to different cases of abortion, no single example is ever meant to apply to all cases of abortion universally.

And, it is definitely not a strawman of abortion after rape. It's acutally quite an apt analogy.

But, Thomson essay isn't just one example. So many people tend to think the violinist example is her entire argument against abortion--but it's not. It's one of a series of arguments in the same essay.

The other stuff is bad to. At first appearance it seems strong, but once you really delve into it they are all just a strawman that plays on your emotions.

No. They're all witty examples that get to real issues. Go re-read her stuff.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 4:24:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 11:15:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:25:06 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/4/2015 7:02:02 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/2/2015 8:48:14 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Discuss. Strengths/weaknesses?

"At first glance I found it quite compelling. But in my opinion a big problem I have with it is that it ignores the fact that the woman is (assuming consensual sex) 50% responsible for putting the "violinist" in the position of needing her body in the first place. Granted, the fetus wouldn't even exist without her putting it in that position, but the fact remains that (again, assuming consent) she has, knowing it was a risk, put a person in the position of needing her body to live simultaneous to "attaching" herself to it. That's why it's different than, say, a violinist lying there in bed and you temporarily attach yourself to him and then decide not to."
-bladerunner060


Right, so this is again somebody using the responsibility objection against Thomson's argument. It's true that the woman is responsible for the fact the fetus now needs her body to go on living, but I don't see how this generates a moral obligation on her to gestate it for 9 months. By conceiving a fetus the woman is not causing it to be needy rather than not needy, she is causing the fetus to be needy rather than not to existence.

"If it is a person, then you have a person that you and another person have attached to you in such a way that they'll die if you disconnect. It seems in that circumstance that it would be akin to poisoning someone, then holding back the antidote--if you didn't poison them, you don't necessarily owe them the antidote, but if you did I think a case could pretty easily be made that holding it back is a moral wrong."
-bladerunner060

If you poison someone then yes, I would agree they now have a right to use your body. This is because you harmed them and caused that person to be worse off than they were before. The pregnancy case is different, though. By conceiving the fetus the woman has not caused it harm like in the case where you poison someone, and for that reason I don't think she has acquired a moral obligation to gestate the fetus until birth.

Just so you know, it appends the "XXX said" to the beginning of the post when you reply, so you don't have to put my name after the statement. Also, if you want to block-quote, you can just put a colon and then a space at the beginning of the paragraph, and that will automatically indent and blockquote for you:

Like so.

You can even use multiple colons in a row to block in more than once:

(x5) Like so.

So if you're pulling a quote from me, you can always just do that. It just reads weird to have you fully quote using the blockquote, which attributes, then attribute it, then requote me and attribute again.

Anyway, moving on to your response, the fact remains that she is putting the being in the position of needing her body. She is the one doing it (for the sake of simplicity and the reality of the situation, wherein this is a consequence which only falls on women, I may not note the dude every time, though it's worth noting that he is equally responsible).

Let me reiterate I don't think that a small collection of cells like a zygote is a person, so this point is irrelevant to the reality.

That said, if we assume for the sake of argument that it IS a person, then your objection fails. If it's a person, her actions (and that of the man) have put the person in that position. That's how person-making works. It's a known consequence of the action. So, they did a thing, a known consequence of which was to put what we're considering, for the sake of argument, to be a person on moral level with a "real" person, in a position wherein it requires the woman's body to keep living. To then withhold that is to put a person in a position wherein they need something, and then withholding that thing they need.

To argue that the nonexistence is of necessity somehow "worse" than any existence is absurd--for example, if you create a being that's in constant agony/on fire or whatnot, you're kind of a terrible person. That's not what's happening here, of course--here you're creating a being that needs you to survive, and you create it knowing that, and if you then refuse to follow through, I think the case is trivial that you are in the moral wrong for doing that, and I really don't see a difference in the poison analogy except in the point that the being didn't exist prior to your creating it.

If we wanted to improve the analogy, let's say I create a test-tube being, that's a full person for this discussion, and it's poisoned by my design, and I have the antidote. Am I in the wrong for withholding that antidote? I would say it would be pretty obvious that I was--that I owed it to this thing I created.

Yes, I agree you do. But again, that's because you harmed that being by poisoning them. However, this doesn't seem to apply to the pregnant woman. The only thing the woman is doing is bringing it into an unconscious existence, not poisoning it. To help put what I'm saying into perspective, let me borrow an example from David Boonin. I will not quote the whole thought experiment in the exact way he does, but I will paraphrase.

Imagine that you're a hedonist, who wishes to engage in a very pleasurable activity. The activity is such that if you engage in it, there will be gas released that will add some unconscious life to some already comatose violinist. As things now stand, the violinist has no more unconscious life ahead of him. But if the gas is released, and he does have a few extra months added as a result, it will then become possible for you to bring him out of his coma by giving him the use of your body for 9 months. There are certain devices that you can use during the pleasurable activity that lower the risk of gas emissions, but not entirely. However, you do not like the way such devices "makes you feel" when you do the pleasurable activity. So you do the pleasurable activity without the devices. As (a foreseeable but not intended) result, some gas escapes, causing some extra unconscious life to be added to the violinist, and now making it possible for you to bring him out of his coma if you remain plugged into him for 9 months.

In this modified version, you are responsible for the fact that the violinist now exist, but you are not responsible for his neediness given that he exist. It's true that doing the pleasurable activity made it the case that the violinist is now dependent on you, but that doesn't mean he has a right to your body for 9 months. In the same way, it's true that the woman having sex made it the case that the fetus is now dependent on her, but that doesn't mean he has a right to the woman's body for 9 months.

Hopefully what I'm saying makes sense. I plan on reading David Boonin's chapter on the responsibility objection again, that way I can give a better answer to this objection that is very often raised. Fast forward to 1:10:18 in this video where the guy in the blue shirt raised this same objection to Boonin:
https://www.youtube.com...
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 4:30:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:36:00 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 4/5/2015 1:20:46 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/2/2015 11:03:02 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
It is a blatant strawman and terrible analogy.

It's not a blatant strawman in the sense that it describes the situation of rape very well.

She tries to apply it to abortion as a whole, and that is the blatant strawman. Also, even if applied only to rape cases the analogy is still a false representation of reality.

I don't think you mean to say it's a straw man, but rather a false analogy. In other words, here analogy doesn't hold up because it's not analogous to pregnancy and abortion. I think Thomson's argument does work in rape. Do you mind explaining why you think it does not?

But, Thomson essay isn't just one example. So many people tend to think the violinist example is her entire argument against abortion--but it's not. It's one of a series of arguments in the same essay.

The other stuff is bad to. At first appearance it seems strong, but once you really delve into it they are all just a strawman that plays on your emotions.

While I ultimately am pro-life, her essay is perhaps one of the most compelling pro-choice arguments out there.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 4:32:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:10:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 12:48:38 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/2/2015 9:11:06 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

3. I don't see how causing the fetus to now exist means the woman has a moral obligation to let it use her body.

It's the moral equivalent of kidnapping a child, placing it in a cell without any food or water, and then saying "No, you may not use my door to get out!"

Fast forward to 1:10:18 in this video where the guy in the blue shirt raised this same objection to Boonin:
https://www.youtube.com...
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 4:37:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:40:49 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:36:00 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 4/5/2015 1:20:46 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/2/2015 11:03:02 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
It is a blatant strawman and terrible analogy.

It's not a blatant strawman in the sense that it describes the situation of rape very well.

She tries to apply it to abortion as a whole, and that is the blatant strawman. Also, even if applied only to rape cases the analogy is still a false representation of reality.

Actually, you're wrong. She makes NO effort to apply the example beyond rape. In fact, she makes it very clear it is just about rape. People who read her essay misapply her example, but Thomson herself does not. The goal of her essay is to offer a variety of examples that apply to different cases of abortion, no single example is ever meant to apply to all cases of abortion universally.

Actually, she does try to apply to abortion as a whole. She uses the other examples in support of the violinist analogy, but I don't think she makes an explicit statement saying "this only applies to rape."

And, it is definitely not a strawman of abortion after rape. It's acutally quite an apt analogy.

But, Thomson essay isn't just one example. So many people tend to think the violinist example is her entire argument against abortion--but it's not. It's one of a series of arguments in the same essay.

The other stuff is bad to. At first appearance it seems strong, but once you really delve into it they are all just a strawman that plays on your emotions.

No. They're all witty examples that get to real issues. Go re-read her stuff.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 4:41:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 4:32:57 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:10:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 12:48:38 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/2/2015 9:11:06 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

3. I don't see how causing the fetus to now exist means the woman has a moral obligation to let it use her body.

It's the moral equivalent of kidnapping a child, placing it in a cell without any food or water, and then saying "No, you may not use my door to get out!"

Fast forward to 1:10:18 in this video where the guy in the blue shirt raised this same objection to Boonin:
https://www.youtube.com...

They are obviously not equivalent situations. In the case of the choking person, you did nothing to cause the person to require the Heimlich maneuver in order to survive, while in the case of the fetus, you did an act knowing that it could result in a baby, and that if such a result were to occur, it would necessarily need your assistance to survive.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 4:45:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 4:41:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:32:57 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:10:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 12:48:38 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/2/2015 9:11:06 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

3. I don't see how causing the fetus to now exist means the woman has a moral obligation to let it use her body.

It's the moral equivalent of kidnapping a child, placing it in a cell without any food or water, and then saying "No, you may not use my door to get out!"

Fast forward to 1:10:18 in this video where the guy in the blue shirt raised this same objection to Boonin:
https://www.youtube.com...

They are obviously not equivalent situations. In the case of the choking person, you did nothing to cause the person to require the Heimlich maneuver in order to survive, while in the case of the fetus, you did an act knowing that it could result in a baby, and that if such a result were to occur, it would necessarily need your assistance to survive.

Then maybe you will find this response more satisfying:

Imagine that you're a hedonist, who wishes to engage in a very pleasurable activity. The activity is such that if you engage in it, there will be gas released that will add some unconscious life to some already comatose violinist. As things now stand, the violinist has no more unconscious life ahead of him. But if the gas is released, and he does have a few extra months added as a result, it will then become possible for you to bring him out of his coma by giving him the use of your body for 9 months. There are certain devices that you can use during the pleasurable activity that lower the risk of gas emissions, but not entirely. However, you do not like the way such devices "makes you feel" when you do the pleasurable activity. So you do the pleasurable activity without the devices. As (a foreseeable but not intended) result, some gas escapes, causing some extra unconscious life to be added to the violinist, and now making it possible for you to bring him out of his coma if you remain plugged into him for 9 months.

In this modified version, you are responsible for the fact that the violinist now exist, but you are not responsible for his neediness given that he exist. It's true that doing the pleasurable activity made it the case that the violinist is now dependent on you, but that doesn't mean he has a right to your body for 9 months. In the same way, it's true that the woman having sex made it the case that the fetus is now dependent on her, but that doesn't mean he has a right to the woman's body for 9 months.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:03:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 4:45:24 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:41:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:32:57 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:10:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 12:48:38 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/2/2015 9:11:06 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

3. I don't see how causing the fetus to now exist means the woman has a moral obligation to let it use her body.

It's the moral equivalent of kidnapping a child, placing it in a cell without any food or water, and then saying "No, you may not use my door to get out!"

Fast forward to 1:10:18 in this video where the guy in the blue shirt raised this same objection to Boonin:
https://www.youtube.com...

They are obviously not equivalent situations. In the case of the choking person, you did nothing to cause the person to require the Heimlich maneuver in order to survive, while in the case of the fetus, you did an act knowing that it could result in a baby, and that if such a result were to occur, it would necessarily need your assistance to survive.

Then maybe you will find this response more satisfying:

Imagine that you're a hedonist, who wishes to engage in a very pleasurable activity. The activity is such that if you engage in it, there will be gas released that will add some unconscious life to some already comatose violinist. As things now stand, the violinist has no more unconscious life ahead of him. But if the gas is released, and he does have a few extra months added as a result, it will then become possible for you to bring him out of his coma by giving him the use of your body for 9 months. There are certain devices that you can use during the pleasurable activity that lower the risk of gas emissions, but not entirely. However, you do not like the way such devices "makes you feel" when you do the pleasurable activity. So you do the pleasurable activity without the devices. As (a foreseeable but not intended) result, some gas escapes, causing some extra unconscious life to be added to the violinist, and now making it possible for you to bring him out of his coma if you remain plugged into him for 9 months.

In this modified version, you are responsible for the fact that the violinist now exist, but you are not responsible for his neediness given that he exist. It's true that doing the pleasurable activity made it the case that the violinist is now dependent on you, but that doesn't mean he has a right to your body for 9 months. In the same way, it's true that the woman having sex made it the case that the fetus is now dependent on her, but that doesn't mean he has a right to the woman's body for 9 months.

It's an interesting thought experiment, I'll give you that. However, there's still a fundamental difference between this and getting pregnant. Presumably you did not cause him to be in a coma, so by not lending your body for his survival, you are not actually violating his rights. In contrast, by having sex and getting pregnant, you are intentionally putting someone in a helpless situation that only you can solve. If you put someone in a coma, and their survival required your body for 9 months, I'd say you have the moral obligation to help them.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:18:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 4:45:24 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:41:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:32:57 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:10:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 12:48:38 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/2/2015 9:11:06 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

3. I don't see how causing the fetus to now exist means the woman has a moral obligation to let it use her body.

It's the moral equivalent of kidnapping a child, placing it in a cell without any food or water, and then saying "No, you may not use my door to get out!"

Fast forward to 1:10:18 in this video where the guy in the blue shirt raised this same objection to Boonin:
https://www.youtube.com...

They are obviously not equivalent situations. In the case of the choking person, you did nothing to cause the person to require the Heimlich maneuver in order to survive, while in the case of the fetus, you did an act knowing that it could result in a baby, and that if such a result were to occur, it would necessarily need your assistance to survive.

Then maybe you will find this response more satisfying:

Imagine that you're a hedonist, who wishes to engage in a very pleasurable activity. The activity is such that if you engage in it, there will be gas released that will add some unconscious life to some already comatose violinist. As things now stand, the violinist has no more unconscious life ahead of him. But if the gas is released, and he does have a few extra months added as a result, it will then become possible for you to bring him out of his coma by giving him the use of your body for 9 months. There are certain devices that you can use during the pleasurable activity that lower the risk of gas emissions, but not entirely. However, you do not like the way such devices "makes you feel" when you do the pleasurable activity. So you do the pleasurable activity without the devices. As (a foreseeable but not intended) result, some gas escapes, causing some extra unconscious life to be added to the violinist, and now making it possible for you to bring him out of his coma if you remain plugged into him for 9 months.

In this modified version, you are responsible for the fact that the violinist now exist, but you are not responsible for his neediness given that he exist. It's true that doing the pleasurable activity made it the case that the violinist is now dependent on you, but that doesn't mean he has a right to your body for 9 months. In the same way, it's true that the woman having sex made it the case that the fetus is now dependent on her, but that doesn't mean he has a right to the woman's body for 9 months.

Also, I don't see how this argument couldn't just as easily be used to justify a mother abandoning her three-year-old child. If a fetus is as "actual" as a three-year-old-child (which some claim is the case) then there's no difference.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:18:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 4:24:24 PM, Dookieman wrote:

Yes, I agree you do. But again, that's because you harmed that being by poisoning them. However, this doesn't seem to apply to the pregnant woman. The only thing the woman is doing is bringing it into an unconscious existence, not poisoning it. To help put what I'm saying into perspective, let me borrow an example from David Boonin. I will not quote the whole thought experiment in the exact way he does, but I will paraphrase.

Your objection rather ignores fundamental aspects though--you're ignoring the fact that not only is the woman giving life, she's also putting the person in the position where it requires her, so yes, it is "poisoning" it, in the sense that without the woman, it dies; which is why the poison analogy is relevant. Remember that a fetus will absolutely die as a fact--it's not as though they can be extracted alive and implanted/frozen/etc. That would change the moral calculus.

Imagine that you're a hedonist, who wishes to engage in a very pleasurable activity. The activity is such that if you engage in it, there will be gas released that will add some unconscious life to some already comatose violinist. As things now stand, the violinist has no more unconscious life ahead of him. But if the gas is released, and he does have a few extra months added as a result, it will then become possible for you to bring him out of his coma by giving him the use of your body for 9 months. There are certain devices that you can use during the pleasurable activity that lower the risk of gas emissions, but not entirely. However, you do not like the way such devices "makes you feel" when you do the pleasurable activity. So you do the pleasurable activity without the devices. As (a foreseeable but not intended) result, some gas escapes, causing some extra unconscious life to be added to the violinist, and now making it possible for you to bring him out of his coma if you remain plugged into him for 9 months.

In this modified version, you are responsible for the fact that the violinist now exist, but you are not responsible for his neediness given that he exist.

Based on what logic? Simply because you don't want to be? I strongly disagree. You most certainly ARE responsible: YOU did a thing that you knew had a chance of resulting in someone being attached to you who'd die without you staying attached. YOU made that choice, and they had no say in the matter. Making that choice means that you are then responsible for that choice--in this case, the being who is attached to you who requires you to continue living.

It's true that doing the pleasurable activity made it the case that the violinist is now dependent on you, but that doesn't mean he has a right to your body for 9 months.

Asserting it doesn't make it so. You not only give it the life, you but ALSO put it in the position where it requires you. To negate your responsibility for that situation seems kind of ridiculous. I would say it's not that he has a right to your body, per se, it's that YOU put him in the position, so if YOU don't follow through, you are responsible for killing him. A subtle distinction, but its' more that continuing the process is ameliorating your murder (where the default state is not to be connected to you because bodily autonomy, the default thing is that you've brought something into existence to die, and the way to avoid that is to remain connected).

It's also worth noting that your analogy diminishes the violinist--using terms like "unconscious life". If we're accepting it as a person (which I don't actually accept, but am for the sake of this discussion), then the unconsciousness is irrelevant--which I think means it's a mere appeal to emotion.

In the same way, it's true that the woman having sex made it the case that the fetus is now dependent on her, but that doesn't mean he has a right to the woman's body for 9 months.

You've not justified this at all, though--you've simply asserted it. In the analogy you've presented, I think you most certainly DO owe it to the violinist to remain plugged in. YOU gave him life, and YOU put him in the position where he requires you. You want to then say "Oh, but there's no responsibility there". If that's the case, then by extension you can bring something to life, and can poison them, and the argument says "Oh, but there's no responsibility there".

Hopefully what I'm saying makes sense. I plan on reading David Boonin's chapter on the responsibility objection again, that way I can give a better answer to this objection that is very often raised. Fast forward to 1:10:18 in this video where the guy in the blue shirt raised this same objection to Boonin:
https://www.youtube.com...

It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's that I think it's an argument whose foundation is fundamentally flawed. It attempts to get around the responsbility argument by shuffling around and pointing in the opposite direction--misdirection. I'm probably not going to watch a video for you. I'd be happy to continue discussing with ya, but reading is a lot easier for me than listening to a video, and you really should be making your own case...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:20:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 5:03:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:45:24 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:41:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:32:57 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:10:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 12:48:38 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/2/2015 9:11:06 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

3. I don't see how causing the fetus to now exist means the woman has a moral obligation to let it use her body.

It's the moral equivalent of kidnapping a child, placing it in a cell without any food or water, and then saying "No, you may not use my door to get out!"

Fast forward to 1:10:18 in this video where the guy in the blue shirt raised this same objection to Boonin:
https://www.youtube.com...

They are obviously not equivalent situations. In the case of the choking person, you did nothing to cause the person to require the Heimlich maneuver in order to survive, while in the case of the fetus, you did an act knowing that it could result in a baby, and that if such a result were to occur, it would necessarily need your assistance to survive.

Then maybe you will find this response more satisfying:

Imagine that you're a hedonist, who wishes to engage in a very pleasurable activity. The activity is such that if you engage in it, there will be gas released that will add some unconscious life to some already comatose violinist. As things now stand, the violinist has no more unconscious life ahead of him. But if the gas is released, and he does have a few extra months added as a result, it will then become possible for you to bring him out of his coma by giving him the use of your body for 9 months. There are certain devices that you can use during the pleasurable activity that lower the risk of gas emissions, but not entirely. However, you do not like the way such devices "makes you feel" when you do the pleasurable activity. So you do the pleasurable activity without the devices. As (a foreseeable but not intended) result, some gas escapes, causing some extra unconscious life to be added to the violinist, and now making it possible for you to bring him out of his coma if you remain plugged into him for 9 months.

In this modified version, you are responsible for the fact that the violinist now exist, but you are not responsible for his neediness given that he exist. It's true that doing the pleasurable activity made it the case that the violinist is now dependent on you, but that doesn't mean he has a right to your body for 9 months. In the same way, it's true that the woman having sex made it the case that the fetus is now dependent on her, but that doesn't mean he has a right to the woman's body for 9 months.

It's an interesting thought experiment, I'll give you that. However, there's still a fundamental difference between this and getting pregnant. Presumably you did not cause him to be in a coma, so by not lending your body for his survival, you are not actually violating his rights. In contrast, by having sex and getting pregnant, you are intentionally putting someone in a helpless situation that only you can solve. If you put someone in a coma, and their survival required your body for 9 months, I'd say you have the moral obligation to help them.

Right, you didn't cause his coma, but you caused it to be the case that he now needs your body. If you had not done that activity, he wouldn't now exist. If you put an adult human being in a coma, and their survival required your body for 9 months, I agree this means they now have a right to your body. This is because you harmed that person and made them worse off than they were before. But this doesn't seem to apply to the pregnancy case. It's true that by creating the fetus it is now dependent on the mother, but the act of conceiving did not cause the fetus harm or make it worse off like in the case of the adult you put in a coma. For that reason, I don't think the objection holds.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:29:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 5:18:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:45:24 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:41:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:32:57 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:10:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 12:48:38 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 4/2/2015 9:11:06 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

3. I don't see how causing the fetus to now exist means the woman has a moral obligation to let it use her body.

It's the moral equivalent of kidnapping a child, placing it in a cell without any food or water, and then saying "No, you may not use my door to get out!"

Fast forward to 1:10:18 in this video where the guy in the blue shirt raised this same objection to Boonin:
https://www.youtube.com...

They are obviously not equivalent situations. In the case of the choking person, you did nothing to cause the person to require the Heimlich maneuver in order to survive, while in the case of the fetus, you did an act knowing that it could result in a baby, and that if such a result were to occur, it would necessarily need your assistance to survive.

Then maybe you will find this response more satisfying:

Imagine that you're a hedonist, who wishes to engage in a very pleasurable activity. The activity is such that if you engage in it, there will be gas released that will add some unconscious life to some already comatose violinist. As things now stand, the violinist has no more unconscious life ahead of him. But if the gas is released, and he does have a few extra months added as a result, it will then become possible for you to bring him out of his coma by giving him the use of your body for 9 months. There are certain devices that you can use during the pleasurable activity that lower the risk of gas emissions, but not entirely. However, you do not like the way such devices "makes you feel" when you do the pleasurable activity. So you do the pleasurable activity without the devices. As (a foreseeable but not intended) result, some gas escapes, causing some extra unconscious life to be added to the violinist, and now making it possible for you to bring him out of his coma if you remain plugged into him for 9 months.

In this modified version, you are responsible for the fact that the violinist now exist, but you are not responsible for his neediness given that he exist. It's true that doing the pleasurable activity made it the case that the violinist is now dependent on you, but that doesn't mean he has a right to your body for 9 months. In the same way, it's true that the woman having sex made it the case that the fetus is now dependent on her, but that doesn't mean he has a right to the woman's body for 9 months.

Also, I don't see how this argument couldn't just as easily be used to justify a mother abandoning her three-year-old child. If a fetus is as "actual" as a three-year-old-child (which some claim is the case) then there's no difference.

If the child is already born, then it's no longer in the situation that the argument appealed to. Not only that, but if the child is three years old, then presumably the woman has already taken it home from the hospital and assumed guardianship over it. So abandoning the child when she has taken on the role of its caretaker is clearly not permissible.