My Kidney Challenge

[Kylie]

Again, this is a paradox, because if there is no one instances at which it becomes a person, then how do you ever get to a person ?

Do heaps of sand exist?

 

[devolved]

You can redefine words all you want. But don't start crying when other people think your arbitrary redefinition is pointless. "Analogy" already has a solid definition, and that's the one I'm using, not the one you think it should be. Language does not revolve around your opinions.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=.....69i57j0l5.2052j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Kylie, you realize that language is a progressive concept, right? I understand that you think that it's something set in stone, and you seem to think that we all agree on all of the definitions just because these are in the dictionaries, but that's not how language works. It actually works the opposite how you think it works. First some guy or girl makes a noise with their mouth as they point to something or describe some concept. Then they spell out that noise, and write out definition using other word-concepts. Then they use it consistently-enough for people to begin adopting and repeating that noise and spelling. And then a guy who writes dictionaries notices the widespread use and puts it in as a reference.

Then some other person decides that it means something else, or minsunderstands semantics and uses it in a different context, and other group of people begin using it so, and the dictionary guy puts b. - defintion, and then .c and etc.

The word Analogy comes from original word that means "ratio" in context of "shape" - so what we would call proportionality. A ping pong ball is not analogous to a moon just because it's round. If you want to frame a proper analogy, then at the very least try to get the context correctly.

 

[devolved]

Sure there is. Would you care to give me a link to this source of commentary about this thread?

That's really not the part of the conversation that I would be interesting in having, since it has little to do with this discussion in context of other people disagreeing with your tactics. But you can peruse this thread and search for phrases like "I think I know where this is going", and the likes. It should give a proper indication.

Me saying that was not an attempt to pour dirt on your arguments. There was a lot of "here we go again" type of sentiment as you were setting up your kidney donor analogy, which is not new or original and has been rehashed for some time now along with other arguments and analogies on this subject.

 

[devolved]

You said I am "not waking up." You said I am not "thinking through philosophy of human being."

Newflash: People can disagree with you without being wrong. It would be to your benefit to learn this.

I'm not sure why you think that I insist that I'm absolutely correct on this issue. I'm merely defending a position. I'm very aware that I can be wrong, and that's how I can know that you can be too.

Once again - the fact you don't think it is an analogy does not mean it isn't one.

Well, you apparently think that donating kidneys is analogous to getting pregnant? How so? Please draw analogous parallels between donating kidneys and getting pregnant?

Since you will never have to go through it, I'd say your opinion is pretty much irrelevant.

If we extend your logic further, no obstetricians should be male then? Their opinions shouldn't matter then on pregnancy matters?

Likewise, why would you come to a forum, ask a question, and then declare that my opinion doesn't matter? Are you interested in understanding the opposing arguments in order to correct your thinking, or are you interested in merely validating it?

I'm not sure that "your opinion doesn't matter, because you have wrong set of genitals" is a compelling argument.

No, you are just telling me that my position as a woman and my opinion about something only a woman will ever face is less important than your opinion.

Quite the opposite. Your opinion on this issue as a woman is much more important than mine. I have a great amount of respect for that. That's why there's less room for false reasoning in your position of responsibility.

I'm merely pointing out where I think your reasoning may be incorrect.

 

[devolved]

Do you think people who attempt suicide WANT to die? By far, most of them don't. It's very difficult for them to do it. They only make the attempt because their lives have gotten to a point where to continue living with what they're facing is even harder.

But if someone is facing a debilitating illness that will leave them in constant pain, with no hope for recovery, I do support their right to die.

I mean, we let our pets die peacefully if they are facing such an illness, why should we insist people suffer?

Sure, I agree, and I don't think I said anything different. But, in many cases of suicide, it is actually the case of thinking that reality is much worse than it actually is.

I think that many cases of abortion is the same issue. There's an imaginary reality of pain and suffering which cancels out the other reality which may not be that at all.

 

[devolved]

Do heaps of sand exist?

Sure, heaps of sand exist. Is a collection of a 100 grains of sand not a small heap?

 

[Kylie]

Kylie, you realize that language is a progressive concept, right? I understand that you think that it's something set in stone, and you seem to think that we all agree on all of the definitions just because these are in the dictionaries, but that's not how language works. It actually works the opposite how you think it works. First some guy or girl makes a noise with their mouth as they point to something or describe some concept. Then they spell out that noise, and write out definition using other word-concepts. Then they use it consistently-enough for people to begin adopting and repeating that noise and spelling. And then a guy who writes dictionaries notices the widespread use and puts it in as a reference.

Then some other person decides that it means something else, or minsunderstands semantics and uses it in a different context, and other group of people begin using it so, and the dictionary guy puts b. - defintion, and then .c and etc.

The word Analogy comes from original word that means "ratio" in context of "shape" - so what we would call proportionality. A ping pong ball is not analogous to a moon just because it's round. If you want to frame a proper analogy, then at the very least try to get the context correctly.

Once again I see someone who wants to quibble over details instead of actually discussing the issue.

Let me know when you can do something other than waste my time.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not sure why you think that I insist that I'm absolutely correct on this issue. I'm merely defending a position. I'm very aware that I can be wrong, and that's how I can know that you can be too.

Funny how you assume there can be an objectively right and objectively wrong position on a moral issue.

Well, you apparently think that donating kidneys is analogous to getting pregnant? How so? Please draw analogous parallels between donating kidneys and getting pregnant?

Did you even read the opening post?

Am I obliged to use part of my body to keep another person alive if I do not wish to? It's not a complicated concept here.

If we extend your logic further, no obstetricians should be male then? Their opinions shouldn't matter then on pregnancy matters?

Wow, you really insist on taking things to absurdities, doncha?

Likewise, why would you come to a forum, ask a question, and then declare that my opinion doesn't matter? Are you interested in understanding the opposing arguments in order to correct your thinking, or are you interested in merely validating it?

Maybe I'm just sick of men deciding that they have a right to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

I'm not sure that "your opinion doesn't matter, because you have wrong set of genitals" is a compelling argument.

You don't seem to spend any time trying to actually understand what I am saying. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/11/men-help-decide-woman-abortion

Quite the opposite. Your opinion on this issue as a woman is much more important than mine. I have a great amount of respect for that. That's why there's less room for false reasoning in your position of responsibility.

So you admit my opinion is more important than yours, yet you try to make my position out as wrong based on false reasoning.

Sounds to me like you are saying, "Kylie, your opinion is more important, so I want you to have the RIGHT opinion - which just happens to be my opinion."

 

[devolved]

Once again I see someone who wants to quibble over details instead of actually discussing the issue.

But you are not discussing the issue. You shift something that's a biological reality into a story about a guy being forced to donate his kidneys. That's not the issue with abortion. No one is forcing you to have sex and get pregnant. And no one is then forcing you to stay pregnant. The last time I checked, the abortion is legal in this country. I repeatedly discussing my position in context of morality. Lying is not illegal (mostly), but it doesn't mean that it is moral (that you should do it)

And that's what I'm trying to explain to you in the post you are replying to.

 

[Kylie]

Sure, I agree, and I don't think I said anything different. But, in many cases of suicide, it is actually the case of thinking that reality is much worse than it actually is.

I think that many cases of abortion is the same issue. There's an imaginary reality of pain and suffering which cancels out the other reality which may not be that at all.

Wow.

First you tell me my opinion about an issue which only affects women is based on false reasoning, now you are saying that what suicidal people go through is all imaginary?

I really hope no pregnant women or suicidal people have contact with you.

 

[Kylie]

Sure, heaps of sand exist. Is a collection of a 100 grains of sand not a small heap?

So if I place a grain of sand down, then add more grains, one by one, at what point does it become a "heap"?

 

[Kylie]

But you are not discussing the issue. You shift something that's a biological reality into a story about a guy being forced to donate his kidneys. That's not the issue with abortion. No one is forcing you to have sex and get pregnant. And no one is then forcing you to stay pregnant. The last time I checked, the abortion is legal in this country. I repeatedly discussing my position in context of morality. Lying is not illegal (mostly), but it doesn't mean that it is moral (that you should do it)

And that's what I'm trying to explain to you in the post you are replying to.

Once again you fail to understand what the analogy is about.

It is asking you whether a person has an obligation to use their body to keep another person alive if the first person does not wish their body to be used for that purpose.

It's a simple concept to grasp, yet you are wasting my time complaining about the definition of "analogy."

 

[devolved]

Funny how you assume there can be an objectively right and objectively wrong position on a moral issue.

I think you'd need to elaborate more on this one, because I don't want to assume what you mean by that.

Am I obliged to use part of my body to keep another person alive if I do not wish to? It's not a complicated concept here.

It's a much better and more direct question, hence there's no need to analogy that's not relevant. You did not lead with this question, so the focus became the viability of the analogy. Please don't be surprised when I have to point out that your reasoning don't seem to be valid as a justification in context of analogy.

So, let's focus on the question above. I'll break it up into a couple of posts.

 

[devolved]

It is asking you whether a person has an obligation to use their body to keep another person alive if the first person does not wish their body to be used for that purpose.

The issue of our rights is generally balanced by issue of responsibilities.

For example, I don't have to risk my life to attempt to swim and save someone who is drowning. But if I just merely sit, watch, and do nothing, claiming that I don't have to use my body to support someone's life... then I can be charged with:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/

The very least I could do is dial 911 or act like I care. If I begin to throw rocks at the person to make sure he drowns faster, then my motives would be upgraded to something else. So, there's a balance between my rights not to not swim and risk my life, and my responsibilities to do something, which is then considered in context of my motives, abilities to do something, and a wider range of factors, like my relationship to the person drowning.

If I'm a parent of a person who is drowning, then I can be charged with a whole score of crimes, because we put parents-child relationship in a different context than that of a stranger-stranger relationship (the one that you paint in your analogy or a question).

So, the proper question you should ask... is do I have an obligation to use my body to keep my child alive if I don't wish to use my body for that purpose. That would be the immediate and proper context, and that's what you are attempting to hide using this analogy. Perhaps you don't do that intentionally, because you seemed to have copied the question from elsewhere, but that's the proper context of abortion, and not "mere someone".... let's keep going.

I'm trying to break the posts up so it's not a one long running post.

 

[devolved]

It's a simple concept to grasp, yet you are wasting my time complaining about the definition of "analogy."

Building on the post above... It's only "simple" if you attempt to obscure the context. When you properly reveal the context, it becomes a whole lots of complicated, because... we understand parents to carry the full responsibility when it comes to supporting their child, and we actually send them to prison in some cases where they neglect that responsibility.

Now, if the parents don't think they can handle that responsibility, they have other options, because we collectively create an environment that takes care of unwanted children. We collectively do that.

But to say that a parent is not obligated to use their body to support a life of their child is obscene, and that's where your logic inevitably breaks down.

Does a parent have a responsibility (obligation) to use their body to support their child?

That's the proper and a very direct question in this context. You shouldn't obscure it with various analogies about kidney donation. You are not asked to donate a kidney.

You are effectively on a continuum of feeding your child until it can eventually develop and can sustain themselves, and that's actually relevant on a range of continuum.

What you are attempting to do is to say that on this part of continuum you are not responsible as a parent, or you are not a mother until the child is born.

But, let's really get down to the uncomfortable crux of the issue. So, if you don't address anything that I've said above, can you answer as to why one should have an abortion apart from the typical rape/problem-pregnancy issues?

So, if one would be giving you a reason as to why one is having an abortion, would there be any reason as to why you'd say "No, sorry, I disagree that it's a good reason". Or, do you think that anything goes?

 

[Kylie]

I think you'd need to elaborate more on this one, because I don't want to assume what you mean by that.

I thought I was quite clear. You seem to be assuming that there is an objective morality.

It's a much better and more direct question, hence there's no need to analogy that's not relevant. You did not lead with this question, so the focus became the viability of the analogy. Please don't be surprised when I have to point out that your reasoning don't seem to be valid as a justification in context of analogy.

You are the only one who has had this problem.

So, let's focus on the question above. I'll break it up into a couple of posts.

I won't.

The issue of our rights is generally balanced by issue of responsibilities.

For example, I don't have to risk my life to attempt to swim and save someone who is drowning. But if I just merely sit, watch, and do nothing, claiming that I don't have to use my body to support someone's life... then I can be charged with:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/

The very least I could do is dial 911 or act like I care. If I begin to throw rocks at the person to make sure he drowns faster, then my motives would be upgraded to something else. So, there's a balance between my rights not to not swim and risk my life, and my responsibilities to do something, which is then considered in context of my motives, abilities to do something, and a wider range of factors, like my relationship to the person drowning.

If I'm a parent of a person who is drowning, then I can be charged with a whole score of crimes, because we put parents-child relationship in a different context than that of a stranger-stranger relationship (the one that you paint in your analogy or a question).

So, the proper question you should ask... is do I have an obligation to use my body to keep my child alive if I don't wish to use my body for that purpose. That would be the immediate and proper context, and that's what you are attempting to hide using this analogy. Perhaps you don't do that intentionally, because you seemed to have copied the question from elsewhere, but that's the proper context of abortion, and not "mere someone".... let's keep going.

I'm trying to break the posts up so it's not a one long running post.

Wow, you really don't understand how analogies work, do you? Are you really trying to tell me the only thing analogous to being pregnant is being pregnant?

Building on the post above... It's only "simple" if you attempt to obscure the context. When you properly reveal the context, it becomes a whole lots of complicated, because... we understand parents to carry the full responsibility when it comes to supporting their child, and we actually send them to prison in some cases where they neglect that responsibility.

Now, if the parents don't think they can handle that responsibility, they have other options, because we collectively create an environment that takes care of unwanted children. We collectively do that.

But to say that a parent is not obligated to use their body to support a life of their child is obscene, and that's where your logic inevitably breaks down.

Does a parent have a responsibility (obligation) to use their body to support their child?

That's the proper and a very direct question in this context. You shouldn't obscure it with various analogies about kidney donation. You are not asked to donate a kidney.

You are effectively on a continuum of feeding your child until it can eventually develop and can sustain themselves, and that's actually relevant on a range of continuum.

What you are attempting to do is to say that on this part of continuum you are not responsible as a parent, or you are not a mother until the child is born.

But, let's really get down to the uncomfortable crux of the issue. So, if you don't address anything that I've said above, can you answer as to why one should have an abortion apart from the typical rape/problem-pregnancy issues?

So, if one would be giving you a reason as to why one is having an abortion, would there be any reason as to why you'd say "No, sorry, I disagree that it's a good reason". Or, do you think that anything goes?

Wow, you contradict yourself here. You first say that the only thing analogous to being pregnant is being pregnant, and now you say there is a continuum.

I get the feeling you are just wasting my time.

Let me make it simple for you...

There is someone who will die unless they are hooked up to your body so your body can keep them alive. Is it ethical for you to be forced to do that?

 

[devolved]

There is someone who will die unless they are hooked up to your body so your body can keep them alive. Is it ethical for you to be forced to do that?

I would give up my heart, my kidneys and my liver if it means that my son lives. I hope that answers your question.

Again, you are attempting to abstract the fact that it's not a mere "someone" we are talking about. It's parent/child relationship.

 

[Kylie]

I would give up my heart, my kidneys and my liver if it means that my son lives. I hope that answers your question.

Again, you are attempting to abstract the fact that it's not a mere "someone" we are talking about. It's parent/child relationship.

And you place a great value on the life of a family member than someone you don't know? That's pretty heartless.

 

[devolved]

And you place a great value on the life of a family member than someone you don't know? That's pretty heartless.

Kylie, I can't take you seriously after the above comment. You can't call me heartless for saying that I would save my child, and at the same time advocate that no one is obligated to support the life of a child or the stranger.

And please stop abstracting the issue here. It's not "a relative". It's my child. You seem to be doing quite a bit here. An it's not "supporting life of someone else" in the abortion case. If it would be you, then someone else would be your child.

So, please don't avoid the question. Are you obligated to support the life of your children? If you say that you don't, please don't call me heartless.

 

[Strathos]

And you place a great value on the life of a family member than someone you don't know? That's pretty heartless.

Everyone does. If you were forced to choose between the lives of your closest friend/family member and a complete stranger you knew nothing about, you would choose to save the former, and you're lying if you say otherwise.