My Kidney Challenge

[Kylie]

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.

You seem to have missed my point, which was that you are deciding how much value a life has purely based on how closely they are related to you.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Yes, I would.

Are you saying abortion is wrong because if I could only save one person, I would save my daughter over someone else?

 

[Strathos]

Yes, I would.

Are you saying abortion is wrong because if I could only save one person, I would save my daughter over someone else?

You said it was callous to value people based on your personal attachment to them.

 

[devolved]

Are you saying abortion is wrong because if I could only save one person, I would save my daughter over someone else?

No, I'm saying that abortion is wrong if you would abort your daughter thinking that it's a stranger's body that you no longer have to support as per your argument.

 

[devolved]

You seem to have missed my point, which was that you are deciding how much value a life has purely based on how closely they are related to you.

Kylie, you seem to be jumping points to avoid the question of parental responsibilities. Just because I have responsibilities to my children doesn't mean that I value lives of other people less. Yes, I wouldn't donate my heart to a stranger, but that's precisely because I have responsibility to my children. And you don't get to say that it's heartless when you seem to hold a much more heartless view... Which seems to be ... If a parent finds it inconvenient to support a child with their bodies, there's nothing heartless about cutting that child into pieces, and throwing them in a trash can, especially if one wouldn't doneate a kidney to a stranger.

Again, you're avoiding my question. Do parents have obligation to feed their children?

 

[Kylie]

You said it was callous to value people based on your personal attachment to them.

Please provide the appropriate context.

I asked: "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 replied: "I would give up my heart, my kidneys and my liver if it means that my son lives. I hope that answers your question." I took this to imply that he would do it for his son, but not a stranger.

I was saying that it was heartless to decide that if a family member needed help to live, he would provide it, but he would NOT provide it if it was a stranger.

In this situation, we are talking about two people who are in danger and I am only capable of saving one. I think it goes without saying that I would save both if I could.

 

[Kylie]

No, I'm saying that abortion is wrong if you would abort your daughter thinking that it's a stranger's body that you no longer have to support as per your argument.

A ball of fertilized cells is not a person. A seed is not a tree.

 

[Kylie]

Kylie, you seem to be jumping points to avoid the question of parental responsibilities. Just because I have responsibilities to my children doesn't mean that I value lives of other people less. Yes, I wouldn't donate my heart to a stranger, but that's precisely because I have responsibility to my children. And you don't get to say that it's heartless when you seem to hold a much more heartless view... Which seems to be ... If a parent finds it inconvenient to support a child with their bodies, there's nothing heartless about cutting that child into pieces, and throwing them in a trash can, especially if one wouldn't doneate a kidney to a stranger.

Again, you're avoiding my question. Do parents have obligation to feed their children?

You wouldn't donate your heart to a stranger?

Well, if you donate your heart, it generally means you are dead. Are you saying that if you were about to die and a doctor asked you if you were an organ donor, you'd say, "I'll only donate my organs if they go to my children"?

Yes, parents do have an obligation to feed their children.

A fertilised ball of cells is not a child.

 

[devolved]

I was saying that it was heartless to decide that if a family member needed help to live, he would provide it, but he would NOT provide it if it was a stranger.

I'm not sure you are qualified to be my spokesperson.

I did not say that I would not provide it to a stranger. I said I have greater responsibility to my child than a stranger. That's why I don't house homeless people in my child's bedroom, and I'm certain that you neither.

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[devolved]

Well, if you donate your heart, it generally means you are dead. Are you saying that if you were about to die and a doctor asked you if you were an organ donor, you'd say, "I'll only donate my organs if they go to my children"?

I think you know what I mean. If I was dying and it was a choice between a stranger or my son, it would be my son. Otherwise whoever needs it can have it. My responsibility is always to my children first.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No---give her yours!

I agree, someone who would force another should willingly give their own first.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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?

I thought we outlawed owning people as property....

 

[Kylie]

I'm not sure you are qualified to be my spokesperson.

I did not say that I would not provide it to a stranger. I said I have greater responsibility to my child than a stranger. That's why I don't house homeless people in my child's bedroom, and I'm certain that you neither.

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

So if a stranger needed a transplant and you were the only person who could provide it, would you?

 

[Kylie]

I think you know what I mean. If I was dying and it was a choice between a stranger or my son, it would be my son. Otherwise whoever needs it can have it. My responsibility is always to my children first.

When did we get the idea that there are two people who need to be saved and you can only help one?

 

[Kylie]

I thought we outlawed owning people as property....

Who said anything about owning someone?

 

[devolved]

When did we get the idea that there are two people who need to be saved and you can only help one?

I'm trying to show you the hierarchy of my values, in which my children come first before anyone else.

 

[devolved]

So if a stranger needed a transplant and you were the only person who could provide it, would you?

It depends who the stranger was, and what the transplant was. If the stranger is a father of 3 with his family depending on him and I was only one in the world who could do that, I'd seriously consider it.

 

[devolved]

fertilised ball of cells is not a child

Kylie, let's get real here, we are not really talking about a fertilized ball of cells in case if an abortion, and you are running to it like that's all we are talking about.

You seem to be ok with abortion at 22 weeks, so we are no longer talking about a bundle of cells here.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who said anything about owning someone?

You. If you are forcing someone you are treating their body and their kidney as your property to do with as you see fit.

 

[devolved]

You. If you are forcing someone you are treating their body and their kidney as your property to do with as you see fit.

I think her point is that she doesn't have to use her body to sustain the life of another body. Not that she "owns the child", but that she doesn't have to be connected to it in order to sustain its life.

Thus, when I ask whether a parent has responsibility to feed their children, the typical response is:

"a bundle of cells is not a child", and when I ask as to what considered to be a child, there's no clear answer, but mostly vague analogies about heaps and grains of sand.

So, I think we can at least should boil it to the "lowest common denominator", and see how far Kylie would like to take the abortion argument?

I'm really interested to know as to when she actually considers abortion to be morally wrong? 4months? 6, 8, 9? I did not get a clear answer.