Your analogy is horribly flawed. The injured stranger would've been just fine had he never encountered the young couple. A fetus would need that couple to get together, in some form, to even exist in the first place. A better analogy would be if the woman in the car had a healthy heart and the injured stranger had a heart condition. For whatever reason only her heart could save him before 9 months are up. They could give her a pacemaker and a heart from a corpse, because her body could theoretically handle it, but his definitely needs her heart. Should she be required to give up her heart to this guy?darth_ender said:
Now let's hypothesize on an analogous train of thought. Think of a man. This man, due to the actions of a young male and female having fun with alcohol and a car, is injured and ends up comatose in a hospital bed. In our little scenario, we have the technology to make a 97% guarantee that this man will not only come out of his coma (in about nine months), but will in fact ultimately make a full recovery, though there is a good chance his memory will be impaired. But at the present we cannot detect any: a) consciousness; b) evidence of reasoning or significant brain activity; c) self-motivated activity; d) effort to communicate; d) enduring self-concepts. This man is, according to Ms. Warren, not a person. He is genetically human, but not a person. The young couple involved did not have insurance, but because they are at fault in this accident, are required to pay for this man's medical bills and treatment. However, simply euthanizing him is a cheaper option, and they won't be responsible for the physical therapy that would follow. You see, when they chose to drink and drive, as fun as it was, they simply weren't ready for the consequences/commitment that might follow such actions. Thank goodness this man was, at least for a time, a very large but ultimately nothing more than, a bunch of cells.
I suspect you would find horror at this situation. But fortunately, with only a little more fiddling with the definition of person, you could argue that the man in question also has a history, and thus retains his personhood, whereas a fetus (an unborn, and in early stages unformed, baby) has no history. But now it really seems like we are creating definitions to suit our own ends rather than simply relying on reality. Let's look at an analogy of such behavior.
Many <a href="http://www.letusreason.org/Cults1.htm">conservative Christians</a> define the word "cult" to meet their own ends and thus exclude other religions, such as Mormons. They come up with specific criteria so they make sure they can fit in while other groups do not. Such does not meet technical definitions of a cult, but since it carries such perjorative weight, they utilize the word according to their own definitions. I'm in the "in" club, but you're not. I have the right to be treated with a full amount of respect, and you do not.
It's an identical method of exclusion for convenience.
Now let's remove the car accident from the equation and put the same specifications. Let's say there's some genetic study her boyfriend thought would be neat and she thought so too. The stranger was a part of the study and it's found out that way. For whatever reason he still needs her heart. He will die without it and she could die too from the surgery or organ rejection. Course she might be willing to give her heart to this guy but what if she's not? Would you be okay with forcing her to go through with the surgery if she didn't want it? With laws being made in place to force her to get her heart cut out for this guy? Let's also say that during these 9 months she'd have to basically be a lifeline for this guy by constantly giving blood because of the virus's replication rate. Because of this there are certain food and drink restrictions that she'd have to endure. Plus she'd have to deal with recovering from surgery herself during the time she's giving blood to this guy. Same deal with the heart, only her blood will save him. So what would you say if she didn't want to do any of that? Would you be an advocate for forcing her to give up her heart, blood, 9 months of her time, and quite possibly even her own life for this guy? Moreover would you be okay with laws being put in place that force any individuals found capable of saving people with the same virus to undergo the same surgery/constant blood transfusions?
My analogy's not perfect either but it's a better representation of the situation than a random stupid car crash.
