• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

My Kidney Challenge

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
And what if Bill DIDN'T poison her, but was still the only possible match? Should he be required to give up his kidney anyway?

Since Bill isn't responsible for Sally's situation, it would be very difficult to make the case that his body autonomy should be violated.

But that's not the situation I'm presenting.

Ah yes, the "She should have known what she was getting into when she decided to have sex" argument.

It's probably a good idea that everyone who has sex knows what they're getting into, correct?

What about rape? What about failed birth control?

In the case of rape, the woman has no assumption of risk because she's not a willing participant. So she wouldn't be required to give up her body autonomy.

In the case of failed birth control however, unless the woman is being tricked into thinking the particular method she or her partner is using is 100% effective, then she understands that there is risk in using any type of birth control, no matter how small. That's part of the "knowing what you're getting into" that's very important.

You can make the case that since the woman understands and is a willing participant in the assumption of risk inherent in having certain kinds of sex, she forfeits her rights to body autonomy if she becomes pregnant.

I don't believe that a fertilized egg is a person. I don't believe a cluster of cells is a person.

Then argue that point instead. The body autonomy argument is flawed for the reasons I've mentioned, and is easily shot down.
 
Upvote 0

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Totally irrelevant. It is a fertilized seed. That is all you need to know.

Hey kylie you are a winner and you matter. :)

I'll look into your post soon. Bugs just gave me a whopper of a response.

I bet you cant wait for our conversation to continue. :)

Good bye treasure
 
Upvote 0

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Totally irrelevant. It is a fertilized seed. That is all you need to know.

Wait a sec it's called a zygote. Man google makes this easy.

So, will I kill a tree by stepping onto a fertilized seed?

Just as a male gamete (sperm cell) is truly alive when it fertilizes a truly alive female gamete (an ovum), the resulting zygote and what it may grow into (if all goes well) is — of course — truly alive.

One thing I know. If I crush a fertilized seed, I have killed it. Have I not?

Cheers
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,669
15,112
Seattle
✟1,167,296.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Since Bill isn't responsible for Sally's situation, it would be very difficult to make the case that his body autonomy should be violated.

But that's not the situation I'm presenting.



It's probably a good idea that everyone who has sex knows what they're getting into, correct?



In the case of rape, the woman has no assumption of risk because she's not a willing participant. So she wouldn't be required to give up her body autonomy.

In the case of failed birth control however, unless the woman is being tricked into thinking the particular method she or her partner is using is 100% effective, then she understands that there is risk in using any type of birth control, no matter how small. That's part of the "knowing what you're getting into" that's very important.

You can make the case that since the woman understands and is a willing participant in the assumption of risk inherent in having certain kinds of sex, she forfeits her rights to body autonomy if she becomes pregnant.

Why would knowing the consequences of your actions remove bodily autonomy? We don't even lose bodily autonomy after we die.


Then argue that point instead. The body autonomy argument is flawed for the reasons I've mentioned, and is easily shot down.

That one can make claims of bodily autonomy do not apply is not the same as people agreeing bodily autonomy does not apply.
 
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Why would knowing the consequences of your actions remove bodily autonomy?

There's any number of reasons someone could come up with why they believe bodily autonomy can sometimes be violated. A sense of justice for example.

We don't even lose bodily autonomy after we die.

Has this been the case in all societies in all times? If not, then is there a way to tell what the "true" position on bodily autonomy is? Or is it the case that ideas about bodily autonomy are just opinions?

That one can make claims of bodily autonomy do not apply is not the same as people agreeing bodily autonomy does not apply.

I didn't say it was. Your missing the point.

The OP is a "gotcha" question. The presumed answer to the question about Sally - "Of course I shouldn't have to give up a kidney" - leads to the proposition that, to be consistent, people shouldn't hold the position that a woman should not have the same bodily autonomy in regards to pregnancy.

I'm saying that there's no reason why someone can't hold a valid opinion about bodily autonomy in that bodily autonomy should be violated in certain circumstances. This eliminates the charge of inconsistency. Now, you may not like that opinion, and it might not be the majority opinion, but you can't effectively argue against it to the person who holds it.

So the bodily autonomy argument (in this case it's really the Judith Jarvis Thomson violinist argument) isn't effective at all. It's easily defeated.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,669
15,112
Seattle
✟1,167,296.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
There's any number of reasons someone could come up with why they believe bodily autonomy can sometimes be violated. A sense of justice for example.

True, but there are any number of reasons anyone could argue any position.


Has this been the case in all societies in all times? If not, then is there a way to tell what the "true" position on bodily autonomy is? Or is it the case that ideas about bodily autonomy are just opinions?

They are of course opinions and not consistent throughout history. However in the US in the modern age bodily autonomy is considered to be inviolable in all but the most extreme of circumstances.

I didn't say it was. Your missing the point.

The OP is a "gotcha" question. The presumed answer to the question about Sally - "Of course I shouldn't have to give up a kidney" - leads to the proposition that, to be consistent, people shouldn't hold the position that a woman should not have the same bodily autonomy in regards to pregnancy.

Agreed.

I'm saying that there's no reason why someone can't hold a valid opinion about bodily autonomy in that bodily autonomy should be violated in certain circumstances. This eliminates the charge of inconsistency. Now, you may not like that opinion, and it might not be the majority opinion, but you can't effectively argue against it to the person who holds it.

I disagree. I do not think you can come up with a good argument against bodily autonomy. The arguments you have presented so far do not seem convincing to me.

So the bodily autonomy argument (in this case it's really the Judith Jarvis Thomson violinist argument) isn't effective at all. It's easily defeated.

I would be very interested to explore this and see it demonstrated. I have never seen this attempted before.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Wait a sec it's called a zygote. Man google makes this easy.

So, will I kill a tree by stepping onto a fertilized seed?

Just as a male gamete (sperm cell) is truly alive when it fertilizes a truly alive female gamete (an ovum), the resulting zygote and what it may grow into (if all goes well) is — of course — truly alive.

One thing I know. If I crush a fertilized seed, I have killed it. Have I not?

Cheers

And by not getting pregnant each month, I have killed an egg, and when my husband doesn't make sure that each of the sperm he produces fertilizes an egg, he is killing between 20 million and 100 million each time he, uh, well, you know.

You gonna yell at me for those deaths as well?
 
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
True, but there are any number of reasons anyone could argue any position.

That's what makes them opinions...

They are of course opinions and not consistent throughout history. However in the US in the modern age bodily autonomy is considered to be inviolable in all but the most extreme of circumstances.

That fact that you're admitting that the opinions are not universal is really all I need.

I disagree. I do not think you can come up with a good argument against bodily autonomy. The arguments you have presented so far do not seem convincing to me.

Since the OP is designed to change the mind of the person who's opinion allows for the violation of bodily autonomy, what's convincing to you isn't the point. You would have to find a convincing counter argument to their position.

I would be very interested to explore this and see it demonstrated. I have never seen this attempted before.

Since the violinist argument is a pretty silly scenario, let me present another one:

Your child has been poisoned by an evil man. Your child is going to die unless they receive a kidney transplant. For whatever reason, the poisoner is the only person on the planet who's kidney will work. The question is, do you think the poisoner should be forced to give up his kidney to save your child, violating his bodily autonomy.

If you answer yes, then your values include the possibility of making exceptions to bodily autonomy, and opens the door to other scenarios that do the same. Like demanding that a pregnant woman who understood the assumption of risk of having sex violate her bodily autonomy and carry the fetus to term.

If you answer no, then the response from the question giver is "How could you be such a monster, that you would value your abstract principles over the life of your child, when the consequences for the poisoner aren't even fatal? Any good parent would jump at any chance to save their child instead of embracing the rights of the murderer who killed them."

The fact that the statement from the questioner seems infinitely more empathetic and... human... leads me to believe that it would be a hard position to counter effectively, yes?

The bodily autonomy argument doesn't work because the same type of statement presented by the questioner can be constructed in the case of abortion.

My point is that the type of argument you bring to a subject can either hurt or help your cause. Personally, I've changed the minds of quite a few people, but never using the bodily autonomy argument. It's always been something that could actually resonate with the person.
 
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟75,427.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Okay, so now here's another question...

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?

I'm sure plenty of intelligent people on this forum probably responded and pointed this out, but just in case they didn't...

It's only hypocritical in context of the analogy you are trying to frame with this issue.

If forcefully donating your kidneys to someone is analogous to "being pregnant", then the only point we can concede from that analogy is that a government shouldn't forcefully impregnate you. I would imagine that the government doesn't do that in our society.

Let's mod this analogy a bit so it is actually analogous. Let's say that someone forcefully got a kidney from you and gave it to another person to save his life. (So, people who don't follow this, it would mean you got pregnant without planning to do so) The recipient had no clue or choice in that matter. It just happened. He wakes up and he is super happy to be alive and well. In fact, if you would ask the guy if he would prefer to be alive or dead, he would say that he prefers to be alive with your kidney than dead. He is not happy that it caused you so much suffering, but he is thankful to be alive.

Ready for the question everyone? ;)

Do you then get to find and kill that person, and cut your kidney out of him as a "Repo Woman" to prove a point about "your kidney" in "his body"?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟75,427.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
And by not getting pregnant each month, I have killed an egg, and when my husband doesn't make sure that each of the sperm he produces fertilizes an egg, he is killing between 20 million and 100 million each time he, uh, well, you know.

You gonna yell at me for those deaths as well?

No, not in a sense that there's a potential for continuum for any of these. A fertilized egg would be in a different continuum category . Hence a there's a continuum fallacy coupled with a category fallacy. You seem to think that a pregnancy is some sort of "parasitic infection" as opposed to the natural biological continuum of your own life.

When the cells in your own body stop dividing and renewing... you die. If that happens to humanity... we die. As the progression of that continuum we are a collective organism. That's why we are talking about this issue in context of what should "we" do.

Hence, it could be argued that abortion hurts us all, although it also could be argued that uncontrolled over-reproduction also hurts us all. But I don't think that solution is killing off the "continuum of your own self" if you deem it to be unplanned and uncomfortable.

Of course, anyone could go and jump off the bridge, but we seldom look at such act and say "Yes! You go man! You have full right to terminate your life anytime you please!" .... we collectively look at these cases with sadness and think that there are some mental issues involved that would prevent self-killing had these issues been addressed.

I'm not saying this in "You are crazy psycho if you want an abortion" type of way. I'm saying that perhaps you have not looked at it in a full-scope of that argument that doesn't place you as an atomized individual bouncing around in the world of other atomized individuals. We did not get this far as individuals. We got this far as societies.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,669
15,112
Seattle
✟1,167,296.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
That's what makes them opinions...



That fact that you're admitting that the opinions are not universal is really all I need.



Since the OP is designed to change the mind of the person who's opinion allows for the violation of bodily autonomy, what's convincing to you isn't the point. You would have to find a convincing counter argument to their position.

A fair point.


Since the violinist argument is a pretty silly scenario, let me present another one:

Your child has been poisoned by an evil man. Your child is going to die unless they receive a kidney transplant. For whatever reason, the poisoner is the only person on the planet who's kidney will work. The question is, do you think the poisoner should be forced to give up his kidney to save your child, violating his bodily autonomy.

If you answer yes, then your values include the possibility of making exceptions to bodily autonomy, and opens the door to other scenarios that do the same. Like demanding that a pregnant woman who understood the assumption of risk of having sex violate her bodily autonomy and carry the fetus to term.

If you answer no, then the response from the question giver is "How could you be such a monster, that you would value your abstract principles over the life of your child, when the consequences for the poisoner aren't even fatal? Any good parent would jump at any chance to save their child instead of embracing the rights of the murderer who killed them."

The fact that the statement from the questioner seems infinitely more empathetic and... human... leads me to believe that it would be a hard position to counter effectively, yes?

I do not see this as being a very good argument though. It's premise relies on putting you in an position where you emotionally support violating bodily integrity to save the life of someone you love. It is the same sort of emotional manipulation that people use to try to support the death penalty. If you change the parameters around so the character is not someone people identify with you will get a different response.

The bodily autonomy argument doesn't work because the same type of statement presented by the questioner can be constructed in the case of abortion.

So you are saying we must use a argument that can not possibly be countered by emotional arguments?

My point is that the type of argument you bring to a subject can either hurt or help your cause. Personally, I've changed the minds of quite a few people, but never using the bodily autonomy argument. It's always been something that could actually resonate with the person.

Well, I personally found the autonomy argument compelling when I was pro-life so it worked for at least one person.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'm sure plenty of intelligent people on this forum probably responded and pointed this out, but just in case they didn't...

It's only hypocritical in context of the analogy you are trying to frame with this issue.

If forcefully donating your kidneys to someone is analogous to "being pregnant", then the only point we can concede from that analogy is that a government shouldn't forcefully impregnate you. I would imagine that the government doesn't do that in our society.

Let's mod this analogy a bit so it is actually analogous. Let's say that someone forcefully got a kidney from you and gave it to another person to save his life. (So, people who don't follow this, it would mean you got pregnant without planning to do so) The recipient had no clue or choice in that matter. It just happened. He wakes up and he is super happy to be alive and well. In fact, if you would ask the guy if he would prefer to be alive or dead, he would say that he prefers to be alive with your kidney than dead. He is not happy that it caused you so much suffering, but he is thankful to be alive.

Ready for the question everyone? ;)

Do you then get to find and kill that person, and cut your kidney out of him as a "Repo Woman" to prove a point about "your kidney" in "his body"?

I don't think that analogy works.

The person in your analogy who stole my kidney, who is that in the pregnancy analogy?
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No, not in a sense that there's a potential for continuum for any of these. A fertilized egg would be in a different continuum category . Hence a there's a continuum fallacy coupled with a category fallacy. You seem to think that a pregnancy is some sort of "parasitic infection" as opposed to the natural biological continuum of your own life.

When the cells in your own body stop dividing and renewing... you die. If that happens to humanity... we die. As the progression of that continuum we are a collective organism. That's why we are talking about this issue in context of what should "we" do.

Hence, it could be argued that abortion hurts us all, although it also could be argued that uncontrolled over-reproduction also hurts us all. But I don't think that solution is killing off the "continuum of your own self" if you deem it to be unplanned and uncomfortable.

Of course, anyone could go and jump off the bridge, but we seldom look at such act and say "Yes! You go man! You have full right to terminate your life anytime you please!" .... we collectively look at these cases with sadness and think that there are some mental issues involved that would prevent self-killing had these issues been addressed.

I'm not saying this in "You are crazy psycho if you want an abortion" type of way. I'm saying that perhaps you have not looked at it in a full-scope of that argument that doesn't place you as an atomized individual bouncing around in the world of other atomized individuals. We did not get this far as individuals. We got this far as societies.

What in the world do you mean by a "continuum category"?
 
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟75,427.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I don't think that analogy works.

The person in your analogy who stole my kidney, who is that in the pregnancy analogy?

Nope. It actually works. The person who stole your kidney in the analogy are the circumstances that got you pregnant.

So, essentially it would be you and your sexual partner.

A baby did not just jump inside of you and took residence. It's a part of the mechanism that you initiated. If you press a button on a microwave does it steal electricity from your house?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟75,427.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
What in the world do you mean by a "continuum category"?

Cells in your body divide and produce other cells.

Each cell will have a continuum of division that would actually be traced back as far as life existed.

So there are various categories of division of these cells as these follow different strategies. There are ones that divide and replace cells in your own body to keep you alive. There are some that divide and expect external genetic material from to begin a different continuum that results in a huma being, which is the second continuum.

So, there's a division that keeps your body alive, and there's one that keeps all of us alive as humanity over extended period of time.

Your individual continuum is merely a chunk of our collective continuum.

I think it goes withiut saying. The eggs that are dying off are not the same as the ones that fertilize and don't die off. You are attempting to put these in the same category and these clearly not in the same category.

So, it's not a single life that you are terminating on that continuum once that process passes the threshold if a different continuum. You may be eliminating hundreds, or even thousands when it comes to the continuum of human lives that could result.

You are alive and experiencing life precisely because of that unterminated chain of continuum as a process of human species as a collective.
Hence that's why we actually have collective morality as it pertains to individuals. We can't survive as individuals. We are not hermaphroditic. We only survive as a collective.

When you begin talking about it using reductionist analogies, you are attempting to hide who you are and your individual responsibilities to humanity in general.

The reason why you want to have sex is because sex is a mechanism for something very specific. There are zero reasons for that mechanism to exist otherwise.

You can redefine the meaning of that mechanism, but in such you are redefining who you are without any justifications to do so.

The reason why you exist today is because there are billions of cells that "sacrifice" themselves as these maintain the continuum of "you" ... And because there are millions of other people who did the same. The reason why we have all of the sacrificial motiffs in religious narratives is precisely because these reflect our internal mechanisms.

Abortion is a denial of who you are when it comes to a reason for you existing as a mechanism in reality.

And when you begin doing that, then your existence is detatched from any meaning and is rather arbitrary. We can't discuss any rights apart from what you are as a human being and what our individual and collective responsibilities. For every right there are numerous responsibilities. You can't detatched rights from responsibilities.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I do not see this as being a very good argument though. It's premise relies on putting you in an position where you emotionally support violating bodily integrity to save the life of someone you love.

And the violinist argument relies on the fact that you have no emotional attachment to the violinist, and aren’t responsible for his condition. Which makes it a terrible analogy for abortion.

So my question to you is, do you save your child or let them die?

It is the same sort of emotional manipulation that people use to try to support the death penalty. If you change the parameters around so the character is not someone people identify with you will get a different response.

As with the violinist argument...

All “arguments” not based on objective facts are opinions. And there isn’t any objective facts to bodily autonomy issues. We can’t prove any inherent right to body autonomy. We just feel like we should have it. Some people then conflate that feeling to the point where they couldn’t accept any situation where bodily autonomy is violated. To me, that’s a more emotional position than one that allows for certain violations.

So you are saying we must use a argument that can not possibly be countered by emotional arguments?

You need to offer positions that work with the audience. Someone who believes an abortion kills a woman’s baby typically won’t be swayed by someone’s opinion regarding the sanctity of bodily autonomy, because they typically see the validity of the exception.

Well, I personally found the autonomy argument compelling when I was pro-life so it worked for at least one person.

So do you fall into the camp that doesn’t allow for any violations to bodily autonomy?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: devolved
Upvote 0