My Kidney Challenge

[bhsmte]

Hi,


You are consistent.

Also, could you give the thread back?

LOVE,

The thread has always been here, go for it.

 

[katerinah1947]

The thread has always been here, go for it.

Hi,

You are still consistent.

It is for you to give the thread back.

LOVE,

 

[Kylie]

Hi,




Hi again,

So both of you. Your statements here seem to say, this is a pesonal issue for both of you.

Your statements seem to say that unless things are proved to you personally, nothing but nothing else counts in this world.

Are you in fact saying, that?

LOVE,

By the way. I don't convince. That is for others to do.

Research is research, and stands in its own merits. Your opinions or mine do not count.

Research standing on its own merits means, it was carried out correctly, and that data is the results, with all care taken to make sure the data was taken and all errors measured.

Research is not subject to self, or opinions, only was it done correctly.

For those that have checked the research so far, they have verified that they have gotten the same results so far.

They got the same results by doing their checks correctly. They did those checks the same way the original work was done.

Have, none of you so far, ever been in a position to do that, and not be wrong in what you are allowed to present and say?

I can say anything in research, as long as I am not wrong.

LOVE.

So I take it you have not had your kidney removed to donate to whoever has need of it?

Why are you violating my rights? You said I had the right to expect you to remove your kidney for donation.

 

[Kylie]

In science, yes normally that is true. Verifications can be used for other people's work. But, if you cite their work, you must prove that you understand their work and that their work is in fact correct.

No. If this were true, then all scientific papers would be filled with scientists explaining how things work in order to show that they understand it. They would also be full of explanations on why the cited sources are correct. And then they'd never actually get around to demonstrating the new stuff.

If you need to use that on your findings, and you either do not understand it or it is not proven to be true yet, then yes you must conduct experiments.

LOVE,

You really don't know how science works.

 

[Kylie]

Hi,

You asked for steps.

Those are the steps.

Does your disagreeing with the steps mean that you too, do not understand that you have been given the answer that you asked for???

LOVE,

No, they are not the steps. You just had a vague description.

Try again, and be specific. Give specific examples using the specific passages that you have investigated, showing in detail how you have concluded that the passages are not in violation of science.

If you have trouble with this, I will provide a passage for you.

 

[the iconoclast]

There is a little girl, named Sally. She needs a kidney transplant or she will die.

Do I have the right to force you to give up one of your kidneys to save her life?

Hey hey Kylie you beautiful person

Do u have the right to make me do something against my will or use coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence?

Cheers look forward to your reply

 

[Strathos]

Do you really think that the consequences of being pregnant cease once the child is born?

Because my life changed completely when I got pregnant with my daughter, and it will never be the same again. So don't tell me it only lasts for 9 months.

Why not just kill your daughter as soon as she was born, then? If you think you should be allowed to kill her before that so that she doesn't inconvenience you, then you'd be a hypocrite not to believe you have the right to do so afterwards.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey Kylie you beautiful person

Do u have the right to make me do something against my will or use coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence?

Cheers look forward to your reply

No I don't.

 

[Kylie]

Why not just kill your daughter as soon as she was born, then? If you think you should be allowed to kill her before that so that she doesn't inconvenience you, then you'd be a hypocrite not to believe you have the right to do so afterwards.

Except that after birth, a baby is an independent person.

 

[Strathos]

Except that after birth, a baby is an independent person.

So would you think it's okay to kill a baby one second before it was born, but not one second afterwards? Seems a bit arbitrary to me.

 

[jayem]

So would you think it's okay to kill a baby one second before it was born, but not one second afterwards? Seems a bit arbitrary to me.

Why is a 2 year old thread being resurrected?

But realistically, in this country, aborting a full-term fetus is not an option. The medical risk is prohibitive. I can think of only one situation where a full-term fetus might have to be sacrificed. That's if a woman goes into labor--outside of a medical facility--and suffers a ruptured uterus. The fetus is expelled into the abdominal cavity, and can only survive for maybe a half hour or so. But the mother will have massive, life-threatening hemorrhage. If they both make it to the ER alive, the primary concern will always be saving the mother's life. She'll likely need an emergency hysterectomy to control the bleeding. The welfare of the fetus is a secondary concern. And if the rupture doesn't occur in a hospital, it almost certainly won't survive.

Uterine Rupture: Causes, Symptoms, and Treatment

 

[Strathos]

Why is a 2 year old thread being resurrected?

But realistically, in this country, aborting a full-term fetus is not an option. The medical risk is prohibitive. I can think of only one situation where a full-term fetus might have to be sacrificed. That's if a woman goes into labor--outside of a medical facility--and suffers a ruptured uterus. The fetus is expelled into the abdominal cavity, and can only survive for maybe a half hour or so. But the mother will have massive, life-threatening hemorrhage. If they both make it to the ER alive, the primary concern will always be saving the mother's life. She'll likely need an emergency hysterectomy to control the bleeding. The welfare of the fetus is a secondary concern. And if the rupture doesn't occur in a hospital, it almost certainly won't survive.

Uterine Rupture: Causes, Symptoms, and Treatment

The OP was arguing that a baby is not a person and has no rights until the moment it leaves the womb.

 

[jayem]

The OP was arguing that a baby is not a person and has no rights until the moment it leaves the womb.

Legally, that is true. The Constitution never explicitly states, or even implies, that the unborn are persons with 14th Amendment rights. And your argument invoking very late term abortion does nothing to refute that. Actually, it's a canard. Late 3rd trimester terminations are high-risk procedures. They're only indicated in rare situations when the mother's life is in imminent danger and other means of delivery are not possible.

Not to mention that Roe v. Wade allows states to regulate abortion in the 3rd trimester. To my knowledge, such abortions are already prohibited in every state except in cases of dire medical necessity.

 

[the iconoclast]

No I don't.

Hey hey Kylie.

See that wasnt so hard was It?

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

So would you think it's okay to kill a baby one second before it was born, but not one second afterwards? Seems a bit arbitrary to me.

Yeah, because a baby one second before it is born is incapable of surviving by itself. That's why there are so many stillbirths where the doctors say, "Oh, if only the birth had been delayed by ten second it would have been fine!"

Also, if a pregnancy lasts for that long, then the mother isn't going to decide, "Oh, I don't want a baby right now." Abortions that happen late in pregnancy take place because the mother's life is at risk, or the baby has some condition that means it will not survive after being born. This is a woman who has picked baby names, who has bought all the baby stuff, who has set up the baby's room. And you make it sound like it's no different to a woman who has a termination after a week or two when she first finds out she is pregnant? That's actually really foul.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey Kylie.

See that wasnt so hard was It?

Cheers

So why do pro-lifers think they have the right to make a woman remain pregnant if she doesn't want to be pregnant?

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Why is it that we all agree that a person is not obligated to use parts of their body to keep others alive (even if the person with the useful body parts is dead), but then so many people suddenly change their mind when it's a pregnant woman who is being asked to use a part of her body to keep the life of another going?

Doesn't this seem like hypocrisy?

Sally is dying, but the baby inside the pregnant woman isn't dying. There is a difference between not directly involved with saving a dying person vs directly taking a healthy person's life.

 

[Fantine]

This is a little bit sad, but I read a book about Calcutta once that documented stories of fathers selling their kidneys so that their daughters would have dowries and be able to marry a man who could provide at least a basic subsistence existence.

The child might have to be a medical tourist, going to a country where sale of organs was permitted, for her to avail herself of the kidney, but there ARE people out there who will sell their kidneys for what probably would seem like a reasonable price to a westerner---and you would have the joy of knowing that you were helping a struggling family's future instead of coercing an unwilling person into donating a kidney.

It is sad, of course, that any parent would be so desperate to save his family that he would sell a kidney to do so. In a just world things like this wouldn't happen.

We live in a world of selective injustice. Depending on the country, people can buy kidneys--but they can't coerce people to donate them for free.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Firstly. You have no "right" unless that is legislated by law. Rights are social constructs. Just imagine you could have the right in one country, and then move to another, and not have the right.

If you mean "ethically proper" that's one of those which can be argued either way - the reason being we base our jugements in such cases on rules of thumb (which have exceptions) and also a "network" of many of them (we ought to do good, life promotion is good, freedom is good, compassion is good, pro social behaviour is good, one ought not be forced under normal circumstances etc) . So the kidney challenge is ethically ambigous as most rules and situations, which you form your opinions in relation to, are open to various interpretations, choices and principle-centred-weightings.

I call this the ethical parallel distributed processing model.

Here are some network images to work with:

I think in a massage board debate like this we have a randomised meeting of one's personal organised networks (with the individual's moral opinion being the summative output of their pre existing network in all of its glory).

Each person has a "PDP net" of moral principles, but the next person has another, so grouping them together in debate-related-superposition leads to a more randomised interaction than the individual is used to. By superposition I just mean overlaying different networks. A brain to brain hook up in moral hyperspace.

Each person's "small world" is compared with the next person's. And the "buttons" are pressed (one might resolve to agitate for freedom, freedom, freedom etc) according to ones personal PDP settings, and PDP game goals. For instance another might try to diminish the emphasis on freedom (e.g contextually agitating: not freedom, save my childs life, feel morally compelled!!!).

E.g analysis Fantine is evoking feeling (sadness) in a move to render us unmotivated or averse, but also compassionate to the general type scenario mentioned in Calcutta:

This is a little bit sad, but I read a book about Calcutta once that documented stories of fathers selling their kidneys so that their daughters would have dowries and be able to marry a man who could provide at least a basic subsistence existence.

But overall there is no "the answer" just a plurality of possibilities according to the settings and button presses of the community. With more or less comfortable moral landscapes to live in (involving more or less friendly RW RPG game characters etc (see below)). This is what the button pressing of discussion and debate sounds like in the abstract:

 

[Skreeper]

So would you think it's okay to kill a baby one second before it was born, but not one second afterwards? Seems a bit arbitrary to me.

Abortion is not about killing babies. An abortion is simply an early termination of the pregnancy which can result in the baby dying.

Do you know what an abortion one second before birth is called? A C-section.