An abortion analogy

[DoubleTwentyOne]

OK let's assume the following scenario:

A short time ago, a new, previously uncategorized terminal disease was discovered to exist in a significant portion of the population.
Shortly after that, an inventor has devised a machine, which, if used properly, can save the victim's life 100% of the time. The way the device works is, a healthy person who does not carry the disease is hooked up, through the machine, to a person with the disease, and a biological process which lasts a total of 9 months is started. Upon completion of this process, the disease shall be cured and the victim will live out the remainder of his/her life immune from this disease. The only catch is you have to be hooked up 24/7 to this person for 9 months and cannot remove the connection at any time for any reason. Removing the connection prematurely will result in instant death for the infected person.
A law has been passed by the government that sets up a random process of selection of potential host healers. The law states that if you are randomly selected to be a host healer, you must give up your life as you know it for 9 months, be hooked up to the infected person, and have your life be dictated by that person's needs.
You do not ever have a say in whether or not you'll have a choice in the matter, if you happen to get unlucky and are selected, you are basically SOL. Whatever adverse consequences that may occur as a result of being attached to another person for 9 months of your life (loss of job, breakdown of relationships, loss of money, emotional trauma, etc) are expected to be fully accepted by you without ANY guaranteed outside help or compensation.

The question is, is this type of law unconstitutional under the premise that it unduely punishes a person who has not done anything wrong except being unlucky enough to be to be chosen to sacrifice 9 months of his/her life. In addition to the loss of time, he/she is fully expected to absorb all of the potental emotional and material losses which undoubtedly will result from such an experience. Does the government have a right to create a law which will take away a person's freedom without first proving that person has committed any crime? Does such a person deserve such treatment under the law?

I feel this analogy is very appropriate in describing a rape victim's experience if she is banned by law from having an abortion.

The issue isn't whether B has a right to harm C. The issue is does the government have a right to restrict B's freedom DUE to C, in light of the fact that B has not done anything legally or morally wrong?

[pvn]

So in this analogy, does the selection committee that picks who gets hooked up to the machine have any liability for picking people against their will?

[DoubleTwentyOne]

[ QUOTE ]
So in this analogy, does the selection committee that picks who gets hooked up to the machine have any liability for picking people against their will?

[/ QUOTE ]

It won't be a committee. It's just a random selection process, more resembling a lottery. They have a diseased patient, and they have a pool of potential hosts. They randomly draw a qualified host and if it happens to be you, off you go.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in this analogy, does the selection committee that picks who gets hooked up to the machine have any liability for picking people against their will?

[/ QUOTE ]

It won't be a committee. It's just a random selection process, more resembling a lottery. They have a diseased patient, and they have a pool of potential hosts. They randomly draw a qualified host and if it happens to be you, off you go.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very commonly used analogy, and most hardcore anti-abortionists will claim that you cannot remove yourself in this case.

However, an interesting corrolary, is suppose a condition of being saved by this machine is to consent to a random drawing when you are healthy. Of course, the pro-abortionists will still not like this comaprision because a fetus is not equivilent to a person with rights in their mind. So suppose you join a group that allows you to save someone else's fetus. You agree to give up 9 months of your life if chosen at random. You get picked. I see no rational argument for getting out of your own choice here.

[HighStakesPro]

Nice analogy, I think it's even being generous by not even contesting the belief that unborn fetuses are equivalent to living human beings.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice analogy, I think it's even being generous by not even contesting the belief that unborn fetuses are equivalent to living human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhhh, thats the beauty of the argument. Give them their premises and still prove it to be silly.

[PokerVicatin]

sign me up, i might get hooked up to some hot girl. SCORE!

[NoamChomsky]

Nobody is pro abortion.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Does the government have a right to create a law which will take away a person's freedom without first proving that person has committed any crime?

[/ QUOTE ]
Governments have no rights. And they don't have the right to restrict people's freedom*.

*There is no freedom to kill people who aren't a direct threat to you or someone else.

Basically, your scenario is a more complicated Violinist Dilemma. For a refutation of said dilemma, check out this article.

[HighStakesPro]

Right.

Although I have to admint, people who oppose abortion probably don't like describing their counterparts as "pro choice." So they could just say "pro abortion rights" which seems accurate enough.