Tiny or not it's still there. Ender's scenario omits it completely. Lowering the the "risks" to money issues.RicOlie_2 said:
But there is only a very tiny risk of death for a woman in pregnancy. Very tiny, unless there are complications, in which case, it may be OK to abort. If the mother's life is in danger, the Catholic Church, and most other Christians, including ender, agree that abortion is justified.
A blood donation alone isn't that good of an analogy but what if they didn't want to donate the blood? Would you be an advocate for forcing them to donate blood? What if the only way that they'd donate the blood is if they were forcibly restrained, would you advocate that or let them keep their rights to their blood?RicOlie_2 said:
His analogy wasn't perfect, that's true, but let's say that instead of just having to cover his bills, they were required to donate blood for a blood transfusion (a small crossover between both of your analogies). Would they then have the right to just end this man's life?
Look no analogy is going to be 100% perfect but you're telling me a random car crash alone is more applicable than the woman actually being needed for the stranger to live longer than 9 months. A drunken car ride is seldom thought to be responsible for making a life. Just by choosing to drive drunk it's intentions are far removed from sex. It's a graver flaw in my opinion.RicOlie_2 said:
But here's the serious flaw with your analogy:
They had no idea, when they signed up for the study, that the man's condition would come to light and they would be needed. Pregnancy is, on the other hand, a well-known consequence of sex. Accidents are a well-known consequence of drunk driving. In both latter cases, both people knew what could happen. Both involve acts of pleasure that can have life-changing consequences. If anyone decides to drink a lot, or engage in sex, they are accepting the possible consequences.
RicOlie_2 said:
There is a very low risk of death in pregnancy compared to the risk of death in abortion, which is 100% (the victim of course being the fetus/baby/whatever you want to call it/him/her). The reliance in your analogy is a bit exaggerated. The woman in your analogy did not make a choice that caused the man's condition. In the case of a pregnancy, the woman makes a choice that directly leads to it. If she is impregnated and didn't plan on it, she obviously wasn't thinking things through very well and should be prepared to carry the child to term.
The reliance isn't exaggerated very much. Apart from the whole needing to stay in the hospital the entire 9 months it's pretty close. Plus there are times where pregnancy causes the woman to need to stay in bed as much as possible. Yes that's later on in the pregnancy but it's still there as a possibility. So even that's not too far off from an analogy of pregnancy.
Ender's analogy bothered me because it totally ignored that and just mentioned money issues. It dances around the fact that, in pregnancy, it's not just money the woman is the literal life line the fetus has. Tech is not yet created to safely transport a fetus to an artificial womb so until then you must keep these issues in mind. The risk to her health, the risk of her death, the risk of her being practically being confined to a bed. Low risk or not it's not something to be ignored. It shouldn't be brushed aside and lowered to only an issue of money because it's not.
