Analogy/scenario... (morality question) for pro lifers...?

Question

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?

I 've asked this question before (I'm trying to get as many answers as possible).

Lot's of people tell me I'm nuts for asking the question and just move on. (I'll agree with the nuts part, but I still think it's a fair question).

Please, even if you don't like the question, explain yourself - otherwise, we won't know where you're comming from.

HannahJPaul: Not only did you not address the question, you are wrong about the scripture.

Answer 1

Too bad...the SOB will have to die. Everyone dies and even musical savants must die. They are remembered fondly.
If he were my brother, son, husband, and I loved him, I might oblige for the nine months, I mean, I carried my kids for nine months because I wanted and loved them. The one I didn't want, I terminated. We had made amends before the end. We forged ahead, knowing full well what we were doing and made peace with each other. He was not disheartened by my decision and seemed to understand where I was coming from and left me, voluntarily, before the body was expelled.
For those not in tune and with no musical ability, you hear a different song. A sad song of longing and discontent. I feel for you, but don't agree. You can hear the voice within and speak to it with reason and it understands and can comply.
By the way, it isn't "only for nine months", it lasts a life time.

Answer 2

We're all swimming in an ocean to survive. Helping others stay afloat is a good thing, as they may return the favor someday. Unfortunately, there are limits to the amount of help one can offer another before their own life becomes in peril. I think the Society of Music Lovers knows the answer. They must be aware they are imposing harm on another against their will to save their friend. They've made a decision to hurt one person in order to save another. I don't think a society that tortures one to save another is long term sustainable. Sooner or later you'll find yourself on the wrong end of the plug. If the person volunteered to help it would be different. It would mean they were a very strong swimmer....or willing to sacrifice for what they see as a worthy cause and no harm was done. If no volunteer or cure was found, the violinist should face his fate and not bring others down with him....hence die with dignity.

With regard to the abortion analogy, suppose the dependent musician would be the child, the one plugged to is the mother, and the Society of Music Lovers must be prolifers. Based on those roles, I don't think it is a very accurate anology. The mother either chose to bring the child into the world or perhaps it was against her will (much less common). In any case, she is not a random selection, and very likely played a key role in the creation of the situation. Then in most cases, such as an unplanned pregnancy or a change of heart, it is hard to see her as the victim as your analogy attempts to imply. In this case, if the mother unplugs it is the child that will suffer due to the irresponsible behavior of the mother (i.e. the mother should have used birth control to avoid the situation or abstained). Based on these roles the person being plugged to could have, in most cases, avoided the situation by taking measures to prevent the musician from being sick and becoming dependent on her.

The moral? Take responsiblity for your actions and you won't inflict suffering on the people around you. Be irresponsible, and you will. Kind of a fundamental law of the universe. Every action cuases an equal and opposite reaction. Make wise choices and you'll avoid nagative consequencies.

Answer 3

Well, for starters, if we lived in a utilitarian society (greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people with no individual rights) this would be acceptable. But we don't, so there would be no justice. This scenario isn't totally parallel to pregnancy, though. The healthy person is illegally kidnapped (an equivalent to rape?) to support a person who is full grown and headed to the end of his life, which is inevitable and natural, this healthy person has no reason to be obligated to a full grown adult. Now, a fetus is concieved without choice. It is nature to be dependent on the womb. Other animals don't kill their fetuses, do they? We can be considered higher than all other animals, we can reason a whole lot more. Look what has happened when we deviate from nature. The world is in war, the environment is shot, we have hatred and evil, I could go on and on. I have never thought about abortion this way, but I think it makes sense. Maybe we should stick to what is the natural course of things. I think some animals live a more normal and happy life than we do! Just a thought.

Answer 4

What an interesting and thought about question!
Personally, I'm a believer in 'Survival of the Fittest' so I'd unplug him without a second thought and, seeing as this is a hypothetical situation, I'd then proceed to vent my rage at such indignities put upon me by slaughtering those responsible!

If in reality, I was to be the father of a child who would, when born, be so severely handicapped in some way as to affect its quality of life to the extent it would not enjoy its existence(ie: in constant pain), or would not be an active part within society in any way whatsoever, realistically, then yes. I would certainly consider abortion as the practical choice. As I said, survival of the fittest. If the world was entirely populated by people with disabilities, then we would perish as a constructive civilization. Unfair, maybe, but whoever thinks life is fair, is living in the same clouds as xtians. Nature has had the right idea for millions of years, who are WE, to arrogantly think we know better?

;)

Answer 5

That is interesting. I'm not a pro life or anti, I'm in the middle, I wouldn't have an abortion but I don't condone those that do. I would be ticked off to have the situation forced on me, I'd rather they asked and more than likely I would say ok, because I'd want to help someone. I would try to make friends with him and the situation and hope they would care for me to provide me with whatever I needed those 9 months then assure me I'd still have a job afterwards but I would do it either way. That's just me. I still would be angry the situation was forced on me. People need to be more honest and direct and I think the world would be a better place for all of us.

Answer 6

I would unplug him immediately. I had not agreed to the connection nor would I have done so had I known it was going to happen. However, if it were a relative, I would have no hesitation allowing the connection being made and I would volunteer willingly to do whatever was necessary.

The analogy: If a female, in a loving relationship, becomes pregnant, it is incumbent upon her to see the pregnancy through, no matter what the consequences. However, if she was raped, she would have every right to an abortion and would have no responsibility to the baby. That's how I feel.............

Answer 7

On the one hand, re-claiming my life as mine would cause his death, so I would not want him "unplugged".

On the other hand, this was done without my permission (why don't they just ask for me to donate a kidney?), so I would want him unplugged.

On the other hand, it is only for 9 months, so I wouldn't mind so much staying plugged in.

On the other hand, this would require that I sleep with another man, and I'd feel supre-ackward about it, not to mention my husband, so I would want to unplug.

On the other hand, it is only for 9 months, so I wouldn't mind so much staying plugged in.

On the other hand, what happened to dialisys? He can get unplugged- the society of music lovers are being silly (and SUPER-illegal, and pretty immoral!!)

This is a hard question to answer- lots of factors, lots of questions I would ask if I were in this situation.

Answer 8

I know that there are instances wherein it would seem infinitely better to end the life of the fetus. Some scenarios are truly heartbreaking. Others seem to have no light at the end of the tunnel.

But if one means to imply some sort of parallel between the characters in the violinist scenario and the mother and child characters in a pregnancy scenario, some important factors are being overlooked. So, simply put: life, according to scriptures, begins at conception. To abort a life is to carry out a preemptive strike against the unborn fetus. There is no scriptural basis which would justify a preemptive strike against the life of an unborn child.

So if a doctor tells me “Hannah, unless you abort this child, you are going to give birth to a three-headed, three-toed sloth” that gives me no right to a preemptive strike. If I am rushed to the hospital at some point during the pregnancy in physical distress, that is to say, my life is in immediate mortal danger, and the doctor tells me, “Hannah, it’s either you or the three-headed, three toed sloth you’re carrying,” at that moment, I have the right to say “save the three-headed, three-toed sloth.” I also have the right to say “save me.”

But neither unwanted pregnancy (even as a result of rape), nor inconvenience, nor young age, nor old age, nor threat of a disfigured child will scripturally justify a preemptive strike against an unborn fetus.

Answer 9

It depends on the situation... You yourself say that it is just for a while and then he would recover from the ailment... it seems right for me to give him that support.... THe point is that it is not the patient has to be on LIFE SUPPORT forever in which case the question of Euthanasia and all that would come in ... But other wise it is still right. One can do anything to further life but give life itself and that is the respect one can give to the institution called life.

Answer 10

It would be morally wrong for them to do that to someone, and if I were in that situation I could not allow the person to die. But I would be angry that i was put into the situation