My Kidney Challenge

[devolved]

So do you fall into the camp that doesn’t allow for any violations to bodily autonomy?

That bit didn't actually occur to me as a viable objection. That's a good one.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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

Someone’s reason to live is personal, not objective. So your opinion isn’t something that anyone needs to accept for themselves.

 

[devolved]

Someone’s reason to live is personal, not objective. So your opinion isn’t something that anyone needs to accept for themselves.

The purpose of biological mechanisms in us is not a matter of subjective opinion, hence I'm not talking about the some vacuous idea about one's life purpose.

There's a biological reason why women ovulate and menstruate or why men [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] sperm, and it had nothing to do with one's subjective opinion on the matter. Likewise there's a biological reason why women get pregnant, and again it has nothing to do with one's subjective opinion of one's life purpose when it comes to immediate context as to why such mechanism is there.

There is nothing subjective about these mechanisms and why people want to have sex. We may overlay some romantic layer of stories as to why, but these are merely icing on the cake of raw biological drives that are there for a rather specific reason, which again has nothing to do with our subjective opinion about it.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The purpose of biological mechanisms in us is not a matter of subjective opinion, hence I'm not talking about the some vacuous idea about one's life purpose.

There's a biological reason why women ovulate and menstruate or why men [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] sperm, and it had nothing to do with one's subjective opinion on the matter. Likewise there's a biological reason why women get pregnant, and again it has nothing to do with one's subjective opinion of one's life purpose when it comes to immediate context as to why such mechanism is there.

There is nothing subjective about these mechanisms and why people want to have sex. We may overlay some romantic layer of stories as to why, but these are merely icing on the cake of raw biological drives that are there for a rather specific reason, which again has nothing to do with our subjective opinion about it.

Do you think anyone should care if they’re not fulfilling a biological “purpose”? What objective reason do we have to care?

 

[Belk]

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?

I do not have children but I'm going to guess if I did I would violate any law or norm to save them.

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.

Many morals we hold to are opinion. "We should not kill each other" is likewise an opinion. That does not mean we do not have strong reasoning to support the opinion.

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.

Which is why I think the bodily autonomy argument is a decent argument. It points out that in no other application (barring highly unlikely hypothetical scenarios) do we presume that a person is required to support the life of another at the expense of themselves.

So do you fall into the camp that doesn’t allow for any violations to bodily autonomy?

I can not think of any real situation where I would support abrogating bodily autonomy. Nor can I think of any real life situation where the law would require that we allow it.

 

[devolved]

Do you think anyone should care if they’re not fulfilling a biological “purpose”? What objective reason do we have to care?

If no one cared then you wouldn't be here. Isn't that obvious? It's a self-negating proposition.

 

[the iconoclast]

I've been on this site forever. I know how this discussion is going to go...

Hey hey my new friend.

How will it go?

 

[devolved]

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

At what point does it become a person in you opinion and what criteria do you use to determine what is a person and what is not?

 

[devolved]

I can not think of any real situation where I would support abrogating bodily autonomy. Nor can I think of any real life situation where the law would require that we allow it.

Would bodily integrity argument take priority in a case where somebody is causing a harm to another?

So if you manage your body in a way that ends up stabbing me with a knife, it obviously annuls any bodily integrity argument.

I know you are not arguing that one can do that without consequences, I'm curious as to why you think there are no limits to that principle? You obviously don't get to pump your body full of drugs, or get to roam around in case of Insanity.

 

[Kylie]

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?

Except I can take action against such circumstances. In your analogy I was not given a choice.

 

[Kylie]

At what point does it become a person in you opinion and what criteria do you use to determine what is a person and what is not?

I don't think there is any single point where you can say, "It's not a person, not a person, not a person.... AND now it IS a person."

This might help you understand my position on it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

 

[the iconoclast]

And by not getting pregnant each month, I have killed an egg,

Totally irrelevant. It is a fertilized seed. That is all you need to know.

Does this Sound familiar my treasure?

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.

How is he killing them?

You gonna yell at me for those deaths as well?

Please excuse me my dear. I do not see how I can yell at you.
Haha get it. Man I make myself laugh

I guess I could go to a secluded area, one with a high hill. Stand apon its majestic peak, with fists raging in the air and fire in my eyes. Clouds ripe with furry, congregate above me. "Kylie", I roared with fury.

However I do not believe you would hear me.

Wait.... I could record it and send it to you.

Cheers kylie.

 

[Kylie]

Totally irrelevant. It is a fertilized seed. That is all you need to know.

Does this Sound familiar my treasure?

So destroying a fertilized seed in a woman's uterus is wrong, but if that fertilized seed is an acorn, then it's fine and dandy?

How is he killing them?

By depriving them of what they need to survive.

 

[devolved]

Except I can take action against such circumstances. In your analogy I was not given a choice.

Sure, and that's what I pointed out, your original analogy can only work if government is impregnating you.

I'll go over it again. If forceful donation of kidney is analogous to Kylie getting pregnant, then the best you can argue with that analogy is that government can't impregnate you.

But that's not what is happening during an unexpected pregnancy. You follow through with a biological mechanism of sex fully understanding that it can result in your "loss of kidney" as per your analogy, and you do it anyway.

So a proper analogy is that there is a donor waiting in fully automated hospital ran by robots.

You fully understand that if you show up with a compatible blood type and lay undressed on the table next to the patient, that it would be interpreted by these robots as a form of consent and they will follow through with the procedure.

So you are curious and you take your pill that alters your blood to be incompatible and you lay dressed on that table, and nothing happens. It's thrilling and exciting for you.

So one day you show you show up and as you lay down your dress rips and your pill runs out. The robots interpret that as consent and donate your kidney.

You then wake up and say... Hey guys! I did not mean to do that! I just liked doing everything up to donating the kidney.

Since the robots can't hear or understand you, you run and hire a killer and another doctor to shoot the guy and take the kidney back.

That's essentially the analogy you are attempting to paint.

 

[Belk]

Would bodily integrity argument take priority in a case where somebody is causing a harm to another?

So if you manage your body in a way that ends up stabbing me with a knife, it obviously annuls any bodily integrity argument.

I know you are not arguing that one can do that without consequences, I'm curious as to why you think there are no limits to that principle?

It is less that I think there are no limits and more I am unable to think of any case where limits should be applied. If I could think of a logical case to impose limits I would not be opposed to it.

You obviously don't get to pump your body full of drugs,

Know of any laws against drinking yourself to death? Me either. You can do so if you desire.

or get to roam around in case of Insanity.

This is not bodily autonomy it is personal liberty and is a slightly different case.

 

[devolved]

I don't think there is any single point where you can say, "It's not a person, not a person, not a person.... AND now it IS a person."

This might help you understand my position on it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

Sorites paradox actually argues against your position, since at any point of reducing of person concept to a minimal requirement of such concept you can't say that it's not a person.

But even in context of our collective ignorance, we generally err on the side of life in virtually all circumstances where we are not sure. That's the reason why we don't kill off autistic children or keep people on life support even though there's a good chance they are not coming back.

What you seem to be framing is sounds similar to Zeno's paradox, in which case if there isn't a moment in which we can say "Hey it's a person now", then we will never get to a person, because all we have is a sequence of these moments in time where we check "is it a person now?". If we trace the development of pregnancy in 5 second intervals and you keep saying no every 5 seconds ... Even after the child is born, then we have a serious legal problem on our hands.

 

[devolved]

It is less that I think there are no limits and more I am unable to think of any case where limits should be applied. If I could think of a logical case to impose limits I would not be opposed to it.

Ok. So you admit that there may be limits, you just not aware of any.n

Know of any laws against drinking yourself to death? Me either. You can

Well, again, you are arguing out of ignorance.

Look up Marchman act. Poeple can force you into a rehab where they will put stuff in your body against your will, violating your body integrity.

Just because you can beat them to killing yourself doesn't mean that your position stands.

This is not bodily autonomy it is personal liberty and is a slightly different case.

Not in a case of a psychiatry clinic, where you get forced treatment and your bodily integrity ideal is violated.

There are plentiful cases where body integrity concept takes the back seat.

 

[devolved]

So destroying a fertilized seed in a woman's uterus is wrong, but if that fertilized seed is an acorn, then it's fine and dandy?

Kylie,

I really think that have a good intentions in this, but you are reducing your argument to devaluing a human being to a status of an oak tree, and a human zygote to a status of a germinated acorn. You really don't see a problem with this? It's absurd and you are much more intelligent and better than resorting to this.

The reason why a lot of people are rolling their eyes here is because neither of the arguments presented are inherently new, nor these are in any particular way interesting. Most of these arise after as a need to rationalize certain position rather than a means to properly evaluate a moral standard of following through with a pregnancy.

The point being is that no pregnant woman generally wakes up in the morning and says "gee, I don't think it's a baby in there yet, so I still have a time to cancel it". It's only "not a baby" when it's not wanted. Thus, all of these Hollywood pro-abortion actors going to their first mammogram don't look at the pictures and say "Yes, look at that little fetus we have". I'm not sure if you have kids, but if you do, I highly doubt you did that either. That's why abortion is emotionally-devastating for women.

So, can we be brutally honest here? It's only not a baby when it's not wanted.

Now, given the above, I'm not faulting you with your attempt to justify abortion, because you are not waking up and thinking through philosophy of human being. Your actions is a result of a long chain of events and ideological fights that result in these intellectual mind-games in which both sides may devolve to absurd positions in order to defend either case. The kidney challenge is not a new argument you came up with. You've seen it, and you think it makes sense, hence you repeat it here. And you may be repeating it even after viable objections are raised and people here will show you that the analogy is flawed.

Again, it seems to me that what constitutes whether a baby is a baby is whether that baby is wanted. Is it a woman's fault not wanting a baby? Is the woman selfish? Well, there is a point to discuss at to why a Christian culture would not create an environment for a mother in which which fear of consequences of having the child would not override desire to have one.

No one is ready to be a parent, and I have two kids. I was terrified in both cases. People told me about all of the joy of holding your child for the first time. I felt terror, because I was not sure I was ready. And I felt guilt for feeling terror, because I realized how truly selfish I am. You don't understand how selfish you are until you have kids. It alters your personal freedom and life drastically. You no longer live for yourself and everything is about them. But, what else do we have in context of humanity? Yes, we've got hedonism, but it's a self-negating proposition. If your parents did not suffer the child birth and its consequences, you would not get to enjoy anything.

Hence, I think there is a healthy balance between terminating an unwanted pregnancy and forcing someone to raise a child they don't want. And that's where the conversations should take us, but these seldom do because we end up in this pseudo-intellectual BS games of regurgitating seemingly valid arguments and responses to justify either extreme.

What do you think a viable middle ground would be?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I do not have children but I'm going to guess if I did I would violate any law or norm to save them.

I'd imagine your position would be overwhelmingly the case among people you ask. Which would mean that, in that particular situation, it would be the norm.

Many morals we hold to are opinion. "We should not kill each other" is likewise an opinion. That does not mean we do not have strong reasoning to support the opinion.

I'm sure you can understand that someone could have strong reasoning to support the idea that bodily autonomy should be violated depending on the situation. In fact, there is more than one ethical system that would state that the poisoner should necessarily give up a kidney.

Which is why I think the bodily autonomy argument is a decent argument. It points out that in no other application (barring highly unlikely hypothetical scenarios) do we presume that a person is required to support the life of another at the expense of themselves.

You can use my example, the one that you yourself said you'd most likely lean towards wishing the violation of bodily autonomy, to justify any similar example. The difference is that your probable opinion would be that abortion isn't a similar example, where someone on the other side could say that it is. I don't think there's a good way to argue someone over to your side, and it's this idea that lies at the heart of why the argument as a whole isn't a good one.

I can not think of any real situation where I would support abrogating bodily autonomy. Nor can I think of any real life situation where the law would require that we allow it.

You've basically admitted above that your position is situational. Personally, I find Situational Ethics to be a more tenable position that systems that require absolutes regardless of situation.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If no one cared then you wouldn't be here. Isn't that obvious? It's a self-negating proposition.

Yes, if everyone years ago decided to stop having babies the human race would have died out.

So? No one is talking about an individual's position so that it because a universal law. Where on earth did you get that idea?