You wake up and....

[mrtourette]

He's nearly dead anyway, the effort and sacrifice wouldn't really be rewarded in any way.

[mrtourette]

just to be clear, I'm pro choice, so I'm playing Devils advocate here before anyone bites my head off...

the parallel, and the point of the (40 year old) thought experiment (i did not write it) is that you would choose to let the person live because they have accomplished something, so why is it ok to kill the unborn child when it could very easily accomplish something great in it's lifetime, you don't have to keep the child, just let it live inside you for nine months and then give it up for adoption.

why is it morally okay (in your opinion) to terminate the pregnancy when the child could accomplish so much?

Edited January 17, 2013 by mrtourette

[Ed209]

I've had a bit of a read up on the original thought experiment and the original concept behind it has been poorly explained on here, and the decision of substituting in the Dalai Lama has completely thrown the whole thing off course.

But I'm not going to attempt to explain it myself, partly because I probably can't do a very good job myself, and also because I think its a load of meaningless guff.

[LondonTom]

Are you allowed porn while in hospital for 9 months?

[mrtourette]

I've had a bit of a read up on the original thought experiment and the original concept behind it has been poorly explained on here, and the decision of substituting in the Dalai Lama has completely thrown the whole thing off course.

But I'm not going to attempt to explain it myself, partly because I probably can't do a very good job myself, and also because I think its a load of meaningless guff.

[fred quimby]

Does he not just get reborn when he dies anyway. So I wouldn't be saving his life just the vessel that carrys him around.

I'd also want to know how many hand jobs I got from him before making the decision..

[Ed209]

Who was the original person?

[5co77ie]

just to be clear, I'm pro choice, so I'm playing Devils advocate here before anyone bites my head off...

the parallel, and the point of the (40 year old) thought experiment (i did not write it) is that you would choose to let the person live because they have accomplished something, so why is it ok to kill the unborn child when it could very easily accomplish something great in it's lifetime, you don't have to keep the child, just let it live inside you for nine months and then give it up for adoption.

why is it morally okay (in your opinion) to terminate the pregnancy when the child could accomplish so much?

[AcademicPistol]

So I phoned up the spiritual leader of Tibet, he sent me a large goat with a long neck, turns out I phoned 'dial-a-lama'.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

at the bare bones of the argument, I reckon most people would say yes to saving a life if they were the only person capable of doing so. the difference is the 9 month thing I think. "a few months" is a bit understating the case imho. A good friend of mine's father died on boxing day after falling ill only 3 months earlier. in september he was in tip top health. 9 months is quite a long time.

[jump]

I don't think many people answer honestly, but if the scenario were real I think there would be a surprising number of people would let him die.

[nightcrawler13]

I think everyone that answered the question in the thread said they would let him die tho.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I think everyone that answered the question in the thread said they would let him die tho.

[LondonTom]

I think everyone that answered the question in the thread said they would let him die tho.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Some of us are considering the implications, it needs more information.

How exactly would I be attached to the glorious leader?

Edited January 17, 2013 by Rufus Gwertigan

[AcademicPistol]

Some of us are considering the implications, it needs more information.

How exactly would I be attached to the glorious leader?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Like a human Dalai-lama-pede.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

it seems most people on here are not as nice as i assumed

[abdoujaparov]

I think everyone that answered the question in the thread said they would let him die tho.

[feral chile]

The reasons there are parallels is that a foetus is dependent on another person for survival, but is not classed as a person, mainly because the life is not viable outside the womb. So a similar scenario would be for a person to find themselves supporting the life of an already grown person, who isn't vialble without this biological support.

So, it still involves thinking of the foetus as a life that's dependent on another, in the same way as a comatose patient would be.

Then they throw in the dilemma that you just found yourself attached to this person, just like you'd find yourself with an unwanted pregnancy.

It's an imperfect scenario, though I'm in the other camp. I couldn't spend 9 months in a hospital with a complete stranger, who was attached to me through no fault of my own, as I have work to go to and a family to look after. So it's a little more than a minor inconvenience. I'd be more inclined to say no.

With most unwanted pregnancies, however, you've usually shared some responsibility in bringing about the pregnancy, so the obligation's stronger. And we just can't base the idea of when a person becomes a person on viability, or we wouldn't be able to place people on life support machines.

having suffered a miscarriage, and having had a really moving dream where I was walking along talking to my child, years later, and at the same time knowing all this was now impossible, I understand the argument of taking away the potential for life all too well.

So, while I might sacrifice the life of the patient, I would never, under any circumstances, have had an abortion.

Edited January 17, 2013 by feral chile

[pehaw]

I think everyone that answered the question in the thread said they would let him die tho.

[nightcrawler13]

thank you Feral

I'm the reverse, though I understand i'm coming at it from the man's point of view.

There is no way I could let a man die knowing it was my decision that lead to his death. If I woke up in hospital attached to a famous violinist, the Dalai Lama or a random bus driver I could not take his life to make mine easier...

If it was someone I had moral distaste for, a paedophile for instance, I'd probably be less likely to carry that burden, but that would be an instance where I would ask for advice from others before I could make that choice.

I've always been pro-choice, and I still am, but after spending the last month reading about this kind of stuff it seems that if I really think about it, I'm morally against the idea of abortions. Yet, I don't care about my morals in this matter, and I choose to ignore the feeling it gives me, because there are SO many reasons why they can be positive, that I need to bury the thoughts of the potential child and treat it as it currently is, a group of dividing cells, as opposed to what it may become.

[mrtourette]

If it was someone I had moral distaste for, a paedophile for instance, I'd probably be less likely to carry that burden, but that would be an instance where I would ask for advice from others before I could make that choice.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

thank you Feral

I'm the reverse, though I understand i'm coming at it from the man's point of view.

There is no way I could let a man die knowing it was my decision that lead to his death. If I woke up in hospital attached to a famous violinist, the Dalai Lama or a random bus driver I could not take his life to make mine easier...

If it was someone I had moral distaste for, a paedophile for instance, I'd probably be less likely to carry that burden, but that would be an instance where I would ask for advice from others before I could make that choice.

I've always been pro-choice, and I still am, but after spending the last month reading about this kind of stuff it seems that if I really think about it, I'm morally against the idea of abortions. Yet, I don't care about my morals in this matter, and I choose to ignore the feeling it gives me, because there are SO many reasons why they can be positive, that I need to bury the thoughts of the potential child and treat it as it currently is, a group of dividing cells, as opposed to what it may become.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Rufus Gwertigan

[nightcrawler13]

Why would you need that? You think it's wrong to be responsible to deny someone life but if you can palm the decision off on someone else you're OK with it? Do you need reassurances that you're doing the right thing to be able to live with it?