My Kidney Challenge

[PreviouslySeeking...]

Such a bizarre thread.

Still, I'm a HUGE fan of bodily autonomy- I don't believe you should ever be forced to use your bodily resources to sustain the life of another.

Side note- abortion on demand in the USA is basically limited to viability or before- so the fetus in question is pretty much just a clump of cells that cannot survive without a host.

 

[devolved]

Side note- abortion on demand in the USA is basically limited to viability or before- so the fetus in question is pretty much just a clump of cells that cannot survive without a host.

Technically, any child is a "clump of cells" that will not survive without parental (or adult) care and supervision. So, it's a rather bizarre category to shift children into at any stage of development.

The question about bodily autonomy is about how far such argument can negate one's responsibility as a "parent body"?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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.

You can still argue that it isn’t a person, and therefore there’s no responsibility towards it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

I didn’t say she owned the child. Who the child belongs to is irrelevant. She asked if she had the right to “force” me to give up a kidney.

If she does then I am nothing but property, a slave to do with as she sees fit.

A free being has a choice, a slave has none.....

Just as I have no right to force an abortion or prevent it by force. I can counsel and plead, but in the end each is accountable to God by their own choices, not mine for them.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You can still argue that it isn’t a person, and therefore there’s no responsibility towards it.

It’s a person the second it’s conceived.

By any other argument we could claim it isn’t a person at any developmental stage before self awareness happens at around 2 years of age.

Under any other argument suffocating my newborn child is acceptable.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It’s a person the second it’s conceived.

Your opinion is duly noted. Other people have differing opinions.

By any other argument we could claim it isn’t a person at any developmental stage before self awareness happens at around 2 years of age.

If your definition of "person" includes the necessity of self awareness, and self awareness starts at around 2 years of age, then yes, to you a 1 year old wouldn't be a person.

Under any other argument suffocating my newborn child is acceptable.

There's a wide variety of opinions about what defines a person. You seem to be engaging in a false dichotomy.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yahweh is wonderful and perfect in wiping out everything that is false,
and punishing (or correcting/disciplining) those who practice anything
false or harmful(in any way) to others..

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your opinion is duly noted. Other people have differing opinions.



If your definition of "person" includes the necessity of self awareness, and self awareness starts at around 2 years of age, then yes, to you a 1 year old wouldn't be a person.



There's a wide variety of opinions about what defines a person. You seem to be engaging in a false dichotomy.

Serial killers think it’s ok to kill people, is there opinion valid?

By everything you said since everyone has a different opinion, then who’s opinion should we follow? Yours?

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

Technically, any child is a "clump of cells" that will not survive without parental (or adult) care and supervision. So, it's a rather bizarre category to shift children into at any stage of development.

The question about bodily autonomy is about how far such argument can negate one's responsibility as a "parent body"?

A host body and a caregiver are not remotely comparable. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

Technically, any child is a "clump of cells" that will not survive without parental (or adult) care and supervision. So, it's a rather bizarre category to shift children into at any stage of development.

The question about bodily autonomy is about how far such argument can negate one's responsibility as a "parent body"?

A host body and a caregiver are not remotely comparable. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Serial killers think it’s ok to kill people, is there opinion valid?

To them, yes. Although I'm sure there are serial killers that don't believe that what they're doing is ok, but can't stop regardless.

By everything you said since everyone has a different opinion, then who’s opinion should we follow? Yours?

You can have whatever opinion you want. That's the way opinions work...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A host body and a caregiver are not remotely comparable. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Are you implying the host body doesn’t feed the developing fetus? That they don’t provide a safe protective environment for development?

Just as a caregiver feeds their children and provides a safe protective environment for the child’s development?

You can’t just say they are not comparable. How are they not comparable?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

To them, yes. Although I'm sure there are serial killers that don't believe that what they're doing is ok, but can't stop regardless.



You can have whatever opinion you want. That's the way opinions work...

Opinions are a dime a dozen so are worth less than a penny each.

But back to the serial killer that thinks it is ok. Is his opinion valid?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Opinions are a dime a dozen so are worth less than a penny each.

But back to the serial killer that thinks it is ok. Is his opinion valid?

I answered that in post #511.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

Are you implying the host body doesn’t feed the developing fetus? That they don’t provide a safe protective environment for development?

Just as a caregiver feeds their children and provides a safe protective environment for the child’s development?

You can’t just say they are not comparable. How are they not comparable?

The host body is a hostage 24/7 to the fetus. It cannot share duties with another host. The fetus TAKES what it needs from the host, to the host's detriment at times.

The caregiver is not a hostage. The caregiver can trade off with anyone willing or heck, just walk away. The caregiver GIVES the child what it needs, or at least what the caregiver thinks it needs. The child isn't going to tax the caregivers' organs.

 

[devolved]

The host body is a hostage 24/7 to the fetus. It cannot share duties with another host. The fetus TAKES what it needs from the host, to the host's detriment at times.

So, let me understand it correctly, you think that fetus takes the mother's body hostage and "TAKES what it needs" from the mother?

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

So, let me understand it correctly, you think that fetus takes the mother's body hostage and "TAKES what it needs" from the mother?

Medically speaking, a fetus does take what it needs from it's host- that isn't new knowledge.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

So, let me understand it correctly, you think that fetus takes the mother's body hostage and "TAKES what it needs" from the mother?

Additionally, the fetus doesn't take the host hostage - it has no agaency. But rather, the nature of pregnancy is a hostage situation.

The pregnant host has zero control over what damage the fetus might cause her body. All she can do is remove the fetus, not control it's interaction.

 

[devolved]

The pregnant host has zero control over what damage the fetus might cause her body. All she can do is remove the fetus, not control it's interaction.

You seem to be implying that fetus is a parasite.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

You seem to be implying that fetus is a parasite.

What you think I'm implying isn't germane. Makes more sense to address what I actually wrote, yes?