My Kidney Challenge

[Kylie]

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

I'm not asking you to provide a hierarchy. I'm asking you to answer a simple question.

Someone needs help from your body to survive. Are you obligated to provide such help?

I'm not asking you to choose between helping your kids or a stranger.

 

[Kylie]

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.

So you'd need to know about the circumstances about the person so you could make a determination about the value of their life?

 

[Kylie]

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.

Please, most abortions are done before 9 weeks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/06/02/GR2009060200592.html

And do you really think that a woman is going to stay pregnant for 20+ weeks before deciding, "Nah, this really isn't for me"? After 20 weeks, you are getting close to what is called "late term abortion, and when it happens this late, it is often because of some fetal abnormality that would mean the baby can't survive.

https://www.self.com/story/viral-story-of-a-late-term-abortion

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/doctor-just-explained-late-term-abortion-twitter-n842611

(You'll also note that the doctor in that article explains that a fetus is pretty much incapable of feeling pain until very late in pregnancy because the required nerve fibers just aren't there yet. And you'll note that closing abortion clinics means the few that remain open are forced to deal with many more women, meaning many women are forced to wait later in pregnancy for abortion. So if you are against abortions later in pregnancy, then it makes sense to keep more abortion clinics open. I know this point hasn't really come up yet, just thought I'd mention it now.)

 

[Kylie]

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

And nobody should be treated like that, should they?

 

[Kylie]

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.

What, you think it's gonna be:

"Is it a child now?"

"No."

"Is it a child now?"

"No."

"Is it a child now?"

"No."

"Is it a child now?"

"No. Oh wait... Now it is."

I've tried explaining to you that it's not a yes or no question. It's not like a light switch which is either on or off. I am at a loss to understand how you seem incapable of grasping this concept.

 

[Kylie]

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.

And when do you count it as conception? When the sperm breaks through the outer part of the egg? There could be several sperm that make it that far, and the first one to reach the egg may not be the one that delivers the DNA payload.

There are also many passages in the Bible which refer to the breath of life, suggesting that the child is not counted as alive until it is actually breathing - that is, until after it is born. Genesis 6:17, for example.

 

[Kylie]

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..

The current state of politics would seem to prove that claim wrong, but that's off topic...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The current state of politics would seem to prove that claim wrong, but that's off topic...

Actually, it is exactly as Yahweh said 2000 years ago that it would be.
(totally wicked)
When the sin has reached its final point, the wickedness is full for judgment,
Jesus Returns and Saves His people, and rules the whole world with an iron fist.
So, yes, obviously, the current state of politics proves perfectly how sinful and wicked all men are ..... throughout the world, as well as on forums.... honesty and truth are forsaken and forgotten, righteousness is unheard of,
and Yahweh (God) is rejected.

 

[devolved]

What, you think it's gonna be:

"Is it a child now?"

"No."

"Is it a child now?"

"No."

"Is it a child now?"

"No."

"Is it a child now?"

"No. Oh wait... Now it is."

The above is only a problem and a paradox if we adopt your ideology. I have no problem there, because parent/child is a definition of a relationship rather than a singular state.

Obviously at some point in time you have to point out where you think the "clump of cells' turns into a child. And the fact that you don't know or you can't is probably not a good defence in favor of your position.

 

[devolved]

And when do you count it as conception? When the sperm breaks through the outer part of the egg? There could be several sperm that make it that far, and the first one to reach the egg may not be the one that delivers the DNA payload.

Again, in your world... It's not a child unless you want it.

 

[devolved]

I've tried explaining to you that it's not a yes or no question. It's not like a light switch which is either on or off. I am at a loss to understand how you seem incapable of grasping this concept.

Kylie, it's difficult for me to understand how you can both claim ignorance and certainty of your position. You both claim that you know that it's not a person and that you don't know when it becomes a person... but then you are certain-enough to kill it. If you don't understand this it as to why it is a problem it will be difficult for me to explain to you.

 

[devolved]

Please, most abortions are done before 9 weeks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/06/02/GR2009060200592.html

And do you really think that a woman is going to stay pregnant for 20+ weeks before deciding, "Nah, this really isn't for me"? After 20 weeks, you are getting close to what is called "late term abortion, and when it happens this late, it is often because of some fetal abnormality that would mean the baby can't survive.

Ok. I see how the semantic game works here. It's only a baby when it can't survive. But when it can and you abort it, then it's a fetus.

Got it!

 

[devolved]

I'm not asking you to provide a hierarchy. I'm asking you to answer a simple question.

Someone needs help from your body to survive. Are you obligated to provide such help?

I'm not asking you to choose between helping your kids or a stranger.

I already said... Yes! If that someone is your child.

But then you switched the topic to how I was heartless for choosing my child over a stranger, and now we are back the full circle.

I'll repeat it again for you, so we are clear. If it is your child, you have responsibility as a parent to keep it alive. As parents we use our bodies to do that. There is no other way to to keep our children alive. We have to use our bodies to feed them, clean them, and take care of them. We can hand them off for adoption, but what we can't do is to chop them up into pieces and discard them as garbage.

And I know first hand how difficult and limiting it is to be a parent, but I really don't see any greater responsibility that we have to each other than that.

 

[devolved]

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

Medically-speaking, fetus can't "take" anything in context of a process that's designed to do what it's supposed to do - produce a child.

A car doesn't "take" tires from a factory. Factory is producing a car as a process.

Likewise, it's a symbiotic process in context of societal dynamics. We take care of our children, and our children then take care of us. That's how humanity was able to achieve what we have today.

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

What you wrote is that:

1) It's a "hostage situation", which is absurd. We have a very specific definition for hostage situation, and it's generally involves HOSTILITY, or from latin hostis - a stranger or enemy. Just because host and hostage share first 4 letters doesn't make them semantically same.

2) Sure, parent is much more than a caregiver, we agree. Yes, virtually all of the parents are taking on these responsibilities to their detriment, both physically, financially, psychologically, you name it.

BUT

The comfort that you are experiencing today when it comes to having a society of people that built stuff that works is predominately because there are parents who don't abdicate their parental responsibilities to keep societies functional.

I know it's difficult to grasp having the atomized view of "my body... I can do what I want", but your body wouldn't exist if your parents didn't choose to go through the trouble of feeding you through maturity. Just because we have a right to bodily integrity (no forceful organ removal or blood donation), don't mean that we all of a sudden don't have responsibilities as parents or as a members of a society which has a long history of people trying to provide viable means of existence for other people. If we collectively care about disabled and unwanted children, I think we should collectively care about unwanted "fetuses".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not asking you to provide a hierarchy. I'm asking you to answer a simple question.

Someone needs help from your body to survive. Are you obligated to provide such help?

I'm not asking you to choose between helping your kids or a stranger.

How one answers the question you've posed will be greatly influenced by which ethical stance one takes. If a person is a Deontological moralist, he/she might say, "By all means, we each must do our moral duty to our neighbors----and if someone needs my kidney, to them my kidney shall go!"

However, for someone who instead adopts the ethical stance of the Ethics of Care, it definitely WILL and SHOULD make a difference in the overall consideration as to whether or not to give a kidney if the kid is a stranger versus one's own child .......................................... Of course, there are other ethical frameworks we could choose, too, and if we choose differently, we would get a different answer.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'll repeat it again for you, so we are clear. If it is your child, you have responsibility as a parent to keep it alive.

If your definition of "child" implies personhood, and your definition of "personhood" excludes fetuses, then while someone might agree with the statement that parents have a responsibility to keep their children alive, they would disagree with the statement that a mother has a responsibility not to have an abortion.

I don't believe that you've put forth an argument for fetus personhood that's been compelling to anyone. That's what you'll have to do if you have any chance of even beginning the process of changing anyone's views on abortion.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

Medically-speaking, fetus can't "take" anything in context of a process that's designed to do what it's supposed to do - produce a child.

A car doesn't "take" tires from a factory. Factory is producing a car as a process.

Likewise, it's a symbiotic process in context of societal dynamics. We take care of our children, and our children then take care of us. That's how humanity was able to achieve what we have today.



What you wrote is that:

1) It's a "hostage situation", which is absurd. We have a very specific definition for hostage situation, and it's generally involves HOSTILITY, or from latin hostis - a stranger or enemy. Just because host and hostage share first 4 letters doesn't make them semantically same.

2) Sure, parent is much more than a caregiver, we agree. Yes, virtually all of the parents are taking on these responsibilities to their detriment, both physically, financially, psychologically, you name it.

BUT

The comfort that you are experiencing today when it comes to having a society of people that built stuff that works is predominately because there are parents who don't abdicate their parental responsibilities to keep societies functional.

I know it's difficult to grasp having the atomized view of "my body... I can do what I want", but your body wouldn't exist if your parents didn't choose to go through the trouble of feeding you through maturity. Just because we have a right to bodily integrity (no forceful organ removal or blood donation), don't mean that we all of a sudden don't have responsibilities as parents or as a members of a society which has a long history of people trying to provide viable means of existence for other people. If we collectively care about disabled and unwanted children, I think we should collectively care about unwanted "fetuses".

A fetus is not a child. A woman who is 16 weeks pregnant with a nonviable fetus has no parental responsibilities to it. Honestly, IRL - parents have minimal legal responsibilities to their children. Parents who have children die due to medical neglect, don't always even face jail time. You don't have to treat them well- just usually not kill them - and that has been a relatively recent requirement. Conversely, adult children have zero legal responsibilities to their parents.

As societies we have codified law to protect what we truly value - I guess we don't value what you think we do. We also don't collectively care about disabled or unwanted children all that much. I know parents who've raised disabled children and social workers who can verify the difficulty of their jobs and the little support they receive.

This is to say that I disagree that we have some long established social contract regarding these issues.

Parents choose to parent. They choose to sacrifice what they do, when they do it.

I've known several women whose pregnancies certainly felt hostile for them. Women may be designed to get pregnant, but it is an imperfect design then. A factory doesn't produce a car and then go up in flames. Women are damaged by pregnancy and die in childbirth, that is fact and not a trivial one.

 

[devolved]

If your definition of "child" implies personhood

No, my definition of a child implies ongoing identity context of a parent/child relationship.

and your definition of "personhood" excludes fetuses

Fetus is a biological name for a stage of human development. I'm not sure we can separate it from "personhood", because there's a continuum to that development. Again, there's a continuum problem. Defining a part of that continuum as one thing and the other part another... doesn't resolve the problem as to what we are talking about on a certain continuum.

I wouldn't say that fetus should have a full-blown person rights, just like a child doesn't have the same rights as adults, but right to life should be the basic right every human being should have.

then while someone might agree with the statement that parents have a responsibility to keep their children alive, they would disagree with the statement that a mother has a responsibility not to have an abortion.

Sure, but I don't think it's as much of a disagreement as much it is rationalization. I wouldn't be able to logically convince anyone that abortion is morally wrong. I think it's an emotional issue when it comes to externalities and pressures that leads one to decide on abortion. I'm not sure that solution is through rational argument.

 

[Kylie]

Actually, it is exactly as Yahweh said 2000 years ago that it would be.
(totally wicked)
When the sin has reached its final point, the wickedness is full for judgment,
Jesus Returns and Saves His people, and rules the whole world with an iron fist.
So, yes, obviously, the current state of politics proves perfectly how sinful and wicked all men are ..... throughout the world, as well as on forums.... honesty and truth are forsaken and forgotten, righteousness is unheard of,
and Yahweh (God) is rejected.

Yeah, people have been singing that tune for 2000 years. It's old and isn't convincing anymore. Time for a new one!

 

[Kylie]

The above is only a problem and a paradox if we adopt your ideology. I have no problem there, because parent/child is a definition of a relationship rather than a singular state.

Obviously at some point in time you have to point out where you think the "clump of cells' turns into a child. And the fact that you don't know or you can't is probably not a good defence in favor of your position.

And how can I make it any clearer?

THERE IS NO ONE SINGLE POINT IN TIME WHEN IT STOPS BEING A CLUMP OF CELLS AND STARTS BEING A CHILD.