Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Pregnancy - Please Help Develop This Analogy

Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 3:31:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Pregnancies are for the most part a very unique human, legal, moral and Constitutional condition. There are really no other situations that are like pregnancies enough to be a valid comparisons. Analogies are almost always somewhat imperfect. That's why they are called analogies and not examples.

I digress.

Analogies are sometimes useful for arguing points and for making points a little easier to grasp. Some here may be familiar with the Pro- Choice argument / analogy known as "Thompson's Violinist." It has been seriously refuted by pro-lifers now for years. - http://www.l4l.org...

I would like to introduce and to further develop my own analogy to pregnancy in this thread. Please feel free to share your constructive thoughts and criticisms.

This analogy assumes that a child in the womb is a person. It goes like this.

1. Imagine there is something that people enjoy doing that gives them great pleasure and everyone (esp. adults) are free to participate in. Let's make it something simple that a lot of people have a very powerful desire to do. For now, let's say it's legally drinking alcohol.

2. Let's imagine (for the purpose of this analogy) that each and every episode of drinking alcohol carries a risk for the drinker to end up in a nursing home or clinic - Physically connected as the sole life support for another completely unaware human being / person.

3. Let's imagine that the connection is such that if the connection is terminated in any way before (roughly) nine months, the other person will die.

4. No all episodes of drinking will result in a "connection" being made and sometimes for many reasons unknown, a connection will fail and the patient will die naturally.

6. There is also a risk that the connection will be so bad that the "drinker's" life will be in grave danger as well.

It's late and I'm tired. This is what I have so far. Let's see what you think.
"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...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 4:54:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 3:31:59 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Pregnancies are for the most part a very unique human, legal, moral and Constitutional condition. There are really no other situations that are like pregnancies enough to be a valid comparisons. Analogies are almost always somewhat imperfect. That's why they are called analogies and not examples.

I digress.

Analogies are sometimes useful for arguing points and for making points a little easier to grasp. Some here may be familiar with the Pro- Choice argument / analogy known as "Thompson's Violinist." It has been seriously refuted by pro-lifers now for years. - http://www.l4l.org...

I would like to introduce and to further develop my own analogy to pregnancy in this thread. Please feel free to share your constructive thoughts and criticisms.

This analogy assumes that a child in the womb is a person. It goes like this.

1. Imagine there is something that people enjoy doing that gives them great pleasure and everyone (esp. adults) are free to participate in. Let's make it something simple that a lot of people have a very powerful desire to do. For now, let's say it's legally drinking alcohol.

Why not gambling, then? To me, alcohol, as the more and more one consumes, the ability to consent slips away. An extreme betting circumstance of sorts.


2. Let's imagine (for the purpose of this analogy) that each and every episode of drinking alcohol carries a risk for the drinker to end up in a nursing home or clinic - Physically connected as the sole life support for another completely unaware human being / person.

Were it an 'extreme gambling situation', this could easily be the risk of losing.

3. Let's imagine that the connection is such that if the connection is terminated in any way before (roughly) nine months, the other person will die.

The connection, however, is mobile. That makes this part complicated to impress upon the gravity of the situation.

4. No all episodes of drinking will result in a "connection" being made and sometimes for many reasons unknown, a connection will fail and the patient will die naturally.

You won't lose all the time, and some times your term of service when losing will not be 9 months...

6. There is also a risk that the connection will be so bad that the "drinker's" life will be in grave danger as well.

(5) ;) If the connection has been found to be unfavorable, I would like to think that the 'wager' could be waived as it was more detrimental than assumed. This part works even if its not a wager, though, as in like, a real pregnancy looks to go south. We can assume that 2 deaths are worse than one outside of this analogy, correct?

It's late and I'm tired. This is what I have so far. Let's see what you think.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 12:21:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 4:54:13 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/7/2015 3:31:59 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Pregnancies are for the most part a very unique human, legal, moral and Constitutional condition. There are really no other situations that are like pregnancies enough to be a valid comparisons. Analogies are almost always somewhat imperfect. That's why they are called analogies and not examples.

I digress.

Analogies are sometimes useful for arguing points and for making points a little easier to grasp. Some here may be familiar with the Pro- Choice argument / analogy known as "Thompson's Violinist." It has been seriously refuted by pro-lifers now for years. - http://www.l4l.org...

I would like to introduce and to further develop my own analogy to pregnancy in this thread. Please feel free to share your constructive thoughts and criticisms.

This analogy assumes that a child in the womb is a person. It goes like this.

1. Imagine there is something that people enjoy doing that gives them great pleasure and everyone (esp. adults) are free to participate in. Let's make it something simple that a lot of people have a very powerful desire to do. For now, let's say it's legally drinking alcohol.

Why not gambling, then?

That'll work fine. Done.


2. Let's imagine (for the purpose of this analogy) that each and every episode of drinking alcohol carries a risk for the drinker to end up in a nursing home or clinic - Physically connected as the sole life support for another completely unaware human being / person.

Were it an 'extreme gambling situation', this could easily be the risk of losing.

I agree.

3. Let's imagine that the connection is such that if the connection is terminated in any way before (roughly) nine months, the other person will die.

The connection, however, is mobile. That makes this part complicated to impress upon the gravity of the situation.

I expected that this point would be brought up at some point. The limited mobility (and the impossible to hide) aspect(s) are areas where the analogy gets weak.

4. Not all episodes of drinking will result in a "connection" being made and sometimes for many reasons unknown, a connection will fail and the patient will die naturally.


You won't lose all the time, and some times your term of service when losing will not be 9 months...

Right.

5. There is also a risk that the connection will be so bad that the "drinker's" life will be in grave danger as well.

(5) ;) If the connection has been found to be unfavorable, I would like to think that the 'wager' could be waived as it was more detrimental than assumed. This part works even if its not a wager, though, as in like, a real pregnancy looks to go south. We can assume that 2 deaths are worse than one outside of this analogy, correct?

Let me make some changes to reflect your input first, then we can talk about the waivers, their legal consequences etc.
"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...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 12:40:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 12:21:22 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/7/2015 4:54:13 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/7/2015 3:31:59 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Pregnancies are for the most part a very unique human, legal, moral and Constitutional condition. There are really no other situations that are like pregnancies enough to be a valid comparisons. Analogies are almost always somewhat imperfect. That's why they are called analogies and not examples.

I digress.

Analogies are sometimes useful for arguing points and for making points a little easier to grasp. Some here may be familiar with the Pro- Choice argument / analogy known as "Thompson's Violinist." It has been seriously refuted by pro-lifers now for years. - http://www.l4l.org...

I would like to introduce and to further develop my own analogy to pregnancy in this thread. Please feel free to share your constructive thoughts and criticisms.

This analogy assumes that a child in the womb is a person. It goes like this.

1. Imagine there is something that people enjoy doing that gives them great pleasure and everyone (esp. adults) are free to participate in. Let's make it something simple that a lot of people have a very powerful desire to do. For now, let's say it's legally drinking alcohol.

Why not gambling, then?

That'll work fine. Done.


2. Let's imagine (for the purpose of this analogy) that each and every episode of drinking alcohol carries a risk for the drinker to end up in a nursing home or clinic - Physically connected as the sole life support for another completely unaware human being / person.

Were it an 'extreme gambling situation', this could easily be the risk of losing.

I agree.

3. Let's imagine that the connection is such that if the connection is terminated in any way before (roughly) nine months, the other person will die.

The connection, however, is mobile. That makes this part complicated to impress upon the gravity of the situation.

I expected that this point would be brought up at some point. The limited mobility (and the impossible to hide) aspect(s) are areas where the analogy gets weak.

4. Not all episodes of drinking will result in a "connection" being made and sometimes for many reasons unknown, a connection will fail and the patient will die naturally.


You won't lose all the time, and some times your term of service when losing will not be 9 months...

Right.

That makes a 'just' or equitable situation hard to make into an analogy. It means even the consequence of the 'gamble' might not specifcally come to fruition. Were we to be some variety of just and equitable, this time should be accrued to something.

5. There is also a risk that the connection will be so bad that the "drinker's" life will be in grave danger as well.

(5) ;) If the connection has been found to be unfavorable, I would like to think that the 'wager' could be waived as it was more detrimental than assumed. This part works even if its not a wager, though, as in like, a real pregnancy looks to go south. We can assume that 2 deaths are worse than one outside of this analogy, correct?

Let me make some changes to reflect your input first, then we can talk about the waivers, their legal consequences etc.

Sure. Contrary to my seeming stance, I don't want abortions to occur. I understand the repercussions of an event like abortion, but I personally cannot put the rights of an established person against the rights of the possibility of 4 and 5, but I will be more than happy to help you craft appropriate resolutions to the fact to make a better situation than what is present.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 3:25:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Revided: This analogy assumes that a child in the womb is a person. It goes like this.

1. Imagine there is something that people enjoy doing that gives them great pleasure and everyone (esp. adults) are free to participate in it. Let's make it something simple that a lot of people have a very powerful desire to do. For now, let's say it's Gaming.

2. Let's imagine (for the purpose of this analogy) that each and every episode of Gaming with another person carries a risk for one of the gamers to end up at a nursing home or clinic - where they are physically connected to a device that makes them the sole life support source for another completely unaware human being / person.

3. Let's imagine that the connection is such that it somehow doesn't immediately show but will show over time and it doesn't immediately limit mobility. If the connection is terminated in any way before (roughly) nine months, the other person will die.

4. Not all episodes of gaming will result in a "connection" being made and sometimes for many reasons unknown, a connection will fail and the patient will die naturally.

5. There is also always a risk that the connection will be so bad that the "gamers" life will be in grave danger as well. Certainly, even after nine months or so, the disconnect will (to varying degrees) be a risk to the lives of both.
"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
2/7/2015 10:36:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 4:54:13 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
We can assume that 2 deaths are worse than one outside of this analogy, correct?

Logically, yes.

Though I would still like to see laws that require medical professionals to do all they can do (within reason) to save / preserve all of the lives that they are presented with.
"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...
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 6:36:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 3:31:59 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Pregnancies are for the most part a very unique human, legal, moral and Constitutional condition. There are really no other situations that are like pregnancies enough to be a valid comparisons. Analogies are almost always somewhat imperfect. That's why they are called analogies and not examples.

I digress.

Analogies are sometimes useful for arguing points and for making points a little easier to grasp. Some here may be familiar with the Pro- Choice argument / analogy known as "Thompson's Violinist." It has been seriously refuted by pro-lifers now for years. - http://www.l4l.org...

I would like to introduce and to further develop my own analogy to pregnancy in this thread. Please feel free to share your constructive thoughts and criticisms.

This analogy assumes that a child in the womb is a person. It goes like this.

I see some problems with the analogy. I will try to give you my feedback as to why it may not be considered legit.

1. Imagine there is something that people enjoy doing that gives them great pleasure and everyone (esp. adults) are free to participate in. Let's make it something simple that a lot of people have a very powerful desire to do. For now, let's say it's legally drinking alcohol.

Ok, so your case will only be for adults, although there's a huge number of teens that get pregnant that would be left out of the analogy.

2. Let's imagine (for the purpose of this analogy) that each and every episode of drinking alcohol carries a risk for the drinker to end up in a nursing home or clinic - Physically connected as the sole life support for another completely unaware human being / person.
3. Let's imagine that the connection is such that if the connection is terminated in any way before (roughly) nine months, the other person will die.

So if I understand correctly, if the person goes too drunk and ends up in a hospital, can put another person of the hospital in danger. I see a big problem here, being that such behavior (drinking) should be illegal if there are possibilities to put another person in such danger . I don't see the relationship with sex, which clearly does not hurt anyone, in any case, is the post-sex (abortion) action that could "harm" the fetus who exists as a result of sex.

4. No all episodes of drinking will result in a "connection" being made and sometimes for many reasons unknown, a connection will fail and the patient will die naturally.

6. There is also a risk that the connection will be so bad that the "drinker's" life will be in grave danger as well.

It's late and I'm tired. This is what I have so far. Let's see what you think.

I think the main problem you are going to face is the driking anology. I agree that analogies should be simplified versions of situations, and thus won't be carbon copies of mentioned situations. But I don't see you analogy being a simplified version of a pregnancy, nor an accurate representation. Maybe you should try to use another activity, not driking alcohol. As for the line of thought, I think you are close to get something.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 6:42:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
@ Otokage - Many of the points you bring up have already been dealt with in the latest version of the analogy.
"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...