Middlemoor said:
Tackling a bank robber is a whole different scenario from having a baby.
It's an analogy. Yes, they're different situations, but they are also similar in a way that highlights my point. When Shakespeare said "All the world's a stage,/And all the men and women merely players" he was not making a hypothesis that Earth is actually flat and made of wooden planks, or that people's emotions and actions are not genuine, but prescribed by a pre-memorized script for the entertainment of an invisible audience. In fact, he probably meant to highlight the way in which people often act purely to impress others and take on different roles at different times in their lives, much like actors.
Similarly, I have drawn a parallel between two otherwise different situations. In doing so, I have illustrated a flaw in a type of logic that you applied to one situation by applying it to another.
But there's hope. An analogy is no formidable juggernaut of reason; you
can refute it! All you have to do is find a flaw in my analogy, and then explain it to me.
For instance, if I said that since dogs and tables both have legs, tables should be able to run like dogs, my analogy would be flawed for two reasons. First, tables are not alive, mechanical, or otherwise endowed with the joints and energy that would allow them to move under their own force. Second, even if tables were able to move, there is no reason to assume that they would run like dogs, since many animals with legs do not use them like dogs do. Furthermore, a whale's flippers are structurally similar to a dog's legs, but whales use their flippers to swim rather than to walk on land.
If you want to refute my argument, come up with a reason why the situations in my analogy are not similar
in a way that would support my argument. Pointing out how they are different in other ways will not refute my argument, in the same way that pointing out that the ground is not made of wood will not disprove that the world is like a stage, in the way that Shakespeare meant.
Edit: Perhaps I should summarize my analogy one more time, just so it's clear:
A pregnant woman choosing to have a baby because the baby could grow up to be a super-genius when she cannot support it and it would significantly hinder her is like a hostage in a bank robbery tackling a robber in an attempt to stop the robbery. Both people are taking risks which are likely to result in dire consequences (the hostage gets shot/the woman and her baby languish in poverty) on the off chance that they will have beneficial consequences (the hostage stops the robbery/the woman's baby grows up to be the next Isaac Newton).
