Here:darth_ender said:
First I'll admit that I don't fully understand your scenarios, as I find your phrasing confusing.
Scenario #1: Happy couple, drunk driving. Hit stranger. Stranger comatose after accident. Diagnosis finds virus. Cure heart transplant and blood donation(constant 9 months) from woman involved with drunk driving.
Scenario #2: Happy couple, genetic tests. Stranger part of genetic tests. Stranger falls ill and comatose. Good news thanks to testing their blood at the same time they find the cure as described in scenario #1.
Your initial scenario: Happy couple, drunk driving. Hit stranger. Stranger comatose after accident. Solution throw money at the doctors and they can make it better. Stranger would've been just fine had accident not occurred.
Your violinist alteration: Happy couple, drunk driving. Violinist hit. Violinist comatose after accident. Somehow you(ender) become one of the individuals involved in the drunk driving. Your blood is needed* to keep the voilinist alive. You agree to the situation.
*(To keep things clear I'm assuming that " If I am not only the only person who has the proper blood type to keep that violinist alive, and I am the reason he is in his predicament, then I am indeed obliged to devote my resources to his survival." the emphasized portion was a typo/error and you meant to convey that your blood actually was the only blood that could save the violinist.)
darth_ender said:
But I also find your analogy over the top. Donating your heart and blood? Come on! Loaning your body for a finite time is far different than giving up organs indefinitely. My analogy is definitely closer to the real thing. And as consuming as pregnancy is (as I lie next to my pregnant wife, typing this, and not revealing the difficulties she has had lately), generally the difficulties are not nearly as bad as you convey in your analogy.
Well I was thinking of a way that the stranger would somehow need the woman specifically to survive as a fetus does. I also thought about how a fetus basically occupies an organ. So in a way simply donating blood isn't enough, nor is some temporary line through a person's kidney's sufficient. It'd have to be something more considering the uterus does expand and c-section is a possibility too. A lung may have been better up to this point but you'd have to include the possibility of her death too. So I went with the heart.
darth_ender said:
Money issues were not my intent either, though I can see how one might interpret it that way. My intent was to simply draw in the fact that it is draining on the couple, but the drain does not justify the euthanasia. See my post with the statistics to see my view on the inconvenience of pregnancy, that it is not always about money, but that it is nearly always about convenience of some sort.
Well my main beef with your scenario is that it seemed to undermine the physical drain of pregnancy. Now that you've admitted that wasn't your intent, it's alright
. Now we could go on debating "what makes a person" but I don't really want to do that. Just gets nowhere and it conveniently never allows for the possibility of considering the sperm a person(or potential person as you see a fetus) too or to be treated the same as pro-lifers want a combined sperm and egg.
