You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation?
2006-07-01 16:32:36 · 13 answers · asked by skeptic 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
nunovyorebiznis: yes, that answers my question well... now, would you force others to do as you do?
2006-07-01 16:48:34 · update #1
Most people are saying that this kind of refers to the rape question. I did not see it that way origionally as most all of the women who have abortions do not chose to get pregnant. Granted, they could be pealnized for having sex in the first place, but they (like the person in the question) did not want to get pregnant.
2006-07-01 18:19:09 · update #2
Interesting analogy.
For this analogy to work, the violinist must not have had any knowledge whatsoever of the Society of Music Lover's plan to do this.
I would not leave him, it is not his fault that the SML did this, and I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I let him die and knew that I could've prevented it.
And at the end of the 9 months, I will have made a great new life-long friend. I would've given him the gift of life, and he might try to pay me back for it, and if not, it doesn't hurt to have another ally in life.
Does that answer your question?
In response to your details, I don't think I'd force anyone else to do that. So I guess, looking back on it, I'd say I'm pro-choice when rape is involved. If they could live with their decision, I suppose that's their choice. I'd better get off answers before you change my opinion on anything else.
2006-07-01 16:42:14 · answer #1 · answered by nunovyorebiznis 4 · 10⤊ 6⤋
I agree. You'd be compelled to. (Well, actually if this happened, of course, the law would step in, and dialysis would be established. But I assume we're ignoring this, for the sake of keeping the analogy going.)
But yes, a strict pro-lifer would be compelled to.
And I suppose I would. (Even though I'm not a strict pro-lifer, but close.)
But you have to know your analogy is fundamentally flawed, as it doesn't involve personal choice. Most abortions are not due to rape/incest.
Those that are...ok. But I already stated even in those cases (which actually somewhat resemble your analogy) I would maintain the connection. Then sue the CRAP OUTTA THOSE PEOPLE WHEN I GOT UP! THAT'S A FRICKIN' CRIME!
So the answer is "yes." to what you asked.
But to the question you intended to ask, I think your question is flawed.
But I'm glad you're at least polite and have thought a bit.Thanks a bunch for simple manners and intelligence.
-Stephen
2006-07-02 00:24:42 · answer #2 · answered by ruhamah13 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep, its only 9months... Would u be that cruel as to deny him life? Then again tho, its not the same as pregnancy where 99/100 times it was a choice.
So basically, equivalent of ur story would be if u punched the violinist in kidneys ever so often... or only just once.
2006-07-01 23:36:33 · answer #3 · answered by WhiteHat 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have to agree totally with nunovyorebuznis!!!! I would hope that everyone would. Have some compassion people!! The poor kidney patient (baby) can't help that he's in the situation. He didn't ask to have a terrible fatal kidney aitment. He's needy. Wouldn't you lend a hand or kidney for nine months to give him life. We all deserve to live that life right? It's started, let God decide when it's to end.
It's a blessing to you as much as it is as a blessing to him when you give.
2006-07-02 00:04:05 · answer #4 · answered by Momasita 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it helped someone, why not? After all aren't we supposed to help those in need?
I really don't see how this applies to "Pro Lifers" unless you are comparing the violinist to a human embryo. . . but if you are, didn't the woman have the chance to say "no" when she was having sex in the first place?
Remember, another term for "pro choice" is
PRO DEATH
2006-07-01 23:40:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
if I woke up and that's the way it was, it was all done and after the fact, I would simply have to go along with it. I mean come on, I couldn't just get up and let him die, I couldn't live with myself.
if I was basically the only person who could help him, by all means, I would help him.
2006-07-01 23:36:17 · answer #6 · answered by cirque de lune 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would unplug his blood sucking leech azz
2006-07-01 23:37:49 · answer #7 · answered by gaiastar 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they should find someone who is willing to do so
it is not right for you to be in that situation because it was not your choice
2006-07-01 23:36:07 · answer #8 · answered by the hamburglar 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I cant believe I even read that.
2006-07-01 23:36:41 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I sappose I would lay there for nine months....AND THEN SUE THEIR ****ESS.
2006-07-01 23:35:41 · answer #10 · answered by Little Wifey 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋