My Kidney Challenge II

[tall73]

I said very clearly that I couldn't answer because I have never been in that position.

Yes, you said very clearly that you have a standard that you will not even define, because it is too complex.

And now you say you can't answer whether your standard--which you don't define--would apply to a case because you never experienced that.

So why are you making kidney challenges? Did you experience that? Why are you talking about choices in IVF clinics where people have to rescue embryos or children (a scenario I have seen mentioned before, but certainly never seen anyone experience)?

You now cannot make any moral determination unless you are in the PRECISE circumstances of the other person?

 

[tall73]

Are you going to keep going on with this silly quibbling over what word I used instead of addressing the actual meaning of my posts?

I addressed both. The new fallback position of personhood is something you will not apply, and you won't even define it. It is meant to be nebulous.

But of course, the larger issue is you won't even accept that when two people engage in the same act, knowing there is a chance of pregnancy that both have responsibility.

That is a clear-cut case of just assigning all the blame to the man because you don't want to admit responsibility for women. So it is not surprising you have made a standard to avoid that for later decisions as well.

 

[tall73]

Irrelevant, since we are not talking about what the facility does, but rather your view of their worth. And you've made it clear that you value the fertilized embryos just as much as a toddler.

Of course it is not irrelevant. If I save the embryos which still belong to the facility and are under a legal agreement, directed by the couple, and they are then destroyed, that has a rather direct bearing. Then I didn't save anyone.

 

[tall73]

If that was the case, then he should have indicated that.

I can understand it being confusing for you. But he can do so if he wants within the rules.

 

[Kylie]

I can understand it being confusing for you. But he can do so if he wants within the rules.

Sorry, I wasn't talking to you. As we've already established, quoting someone doesn't mean they are talking to you.

 

[tall73]

Sorry, I wasn't talking to you. As we've already established, quoting someone doesn't mean they are talking to you.

And as we established, I can quote you and comment whether you were talking to me or not, public forum and all.

So are you done defending your standard?

How did you study your way into this profound standard you can't define, can't say when it happens, and would never apply unless you were in the exact situation?

 

[Kylie]

And as we established, I can quote you and comment whether you were talking to me or not, public forum and all.

If that's the case, then he had no justification to call me out on it.

So are you done defending your standard?

How did you study your way into this profound standard you can't define, can't say when it happens, and would never apply unless you were in the exact situation?

You want me to say that I wouldn't have done it if I had been in that situation? Fine. I wouldn't have done it. You want me to speak for others, despite me not knowing their situation? Too bad. I'm not so arrogant to think that I can make the best choice for someone else, particular when all I know about them can be written in a couple of sentences.

Now, let's discuss how you have been forced to resort to concentrating on a tiny fraction of abortions in order to justify a blanket statement about abortions.

 

[tall73]

You want me to say that I wouldn't have done it if I had been in that situation? Fine. I wouldn't have done it. You want me to speak for others, despite me not knowing their situation? Too bad. I'm not so arrogant to think that I can make the best choice for someone else, particular when all I know about them can be written in a couple of sentences.

Now, let's discuss how you have been forced to resort to concentrating on a tiny fraction of abortions in order to justify a blanket statement about abortions.

I have only been forced to focus on a tiny fraction of abortions in order to get you to apply your own standard. And you finally found an abortion that YOU wouldn't do. Great.

Now explain how that relates to personhood, which is your standard.

 

[Kylie]

I have only been forced to focus on a tiny fraction of abortions in order to get you to apply your own standard. And you finally found an abortion that YOU wouldn't do. Great.

Now explain how that relates to personhood, which is your standard.

You're the one who has been saying that abortions are wrong, and you had to resort to invoking a particular kind of abortion that almost never happens. And, as I pointed out in post 295, by making it easier to get abortions earlier in the pregnancy, the kind of abortions you needed to invoke can be pretty much eliminated entirely.

 

[tall73]

You're the one who has been saying that abortions are wrong, and you had to resort to invoking a particular kind of abortion that almost never happens. And, as I pointed out in post 295, by making it easier to get abortions earlier in the pregnancy, the kind of abortions you needed to invoke can be pretty much eliminated entirely.

I have been outlining that a woman aborting the child she helped conceive, from the point of conception on, is wrong. She has a responsibility due to bringing that life into being.

You may not find that convincing. But I assure you that your illogical denials of the woman's responsibility at the same time you hold the man completely responsible for them both engaging in the same act is hardly going to be the sort of argument that will convince others.

It simply comes across that you have a different standard for men and women, and will not recognize female agency at all.

The only reason rare incidents needed to be raised in our discussion is because I was seeking for SOME scenario where you would actually apply your standard of bodily autonomy. But you wont admit the woman exercised autonomy in agreeing to sex, knowing pregnancy could result, and therefore has responsibility. But you say the man does.

And you won't apply it to the baby until it is a "person" which you steadfastly refuse to define. There is no point in saying you hold the principle if you don't actually apply it.
And there is no point discussing morality with someone who applies moral responsibility to only one gender.

So we keep going in circles. Just as we did when you said to you hold to subjective morality, but then advocated for multiple moral principles that you indicated applied to all.

Perhaps this will clarify:

Can females be morally in the wrong on anything, or responsible for anything? Or can only men?

 

[Kylie]

I have been outlining that a woman aborting the child she helped conceive, from the point of conception on, is wrong. She has a responsibility due to bringing that life into being.

You may not find that convincing. But I assure you that your illogical denials of the woman's responsibility at the same time you hold the man completely responsible for them both engaging in the same act is hardly going to be the sort of argument that will convince others.

It simply comes across that you have a different standard for men and women, and will not recognize female agency at all.

The only reason rare incidents needed to be raised in our discussion is because I was seeking for SOME scenario where you would actually apply your standard of bodily autonomy. But you wont admit the woman exercised autonomy in agreeing to sex, knowing pregnancy could result, and therefore has responsibility. But you say the man does.

And you won't apply it to the baby until it is a "person" which you steadfastly refuse to define. There is no point in saying you hold the principle if you don't actually apply it.
And there is no point discussing morality with someone who applies moral responsibility to only one gender.

So we keep going in circles. Just as we did when you said to you hold to subjective morality, but then advocated for multiple moral principles that you indicated applied to all.

Perhaps this will clarify:

Can females be morally in the wrong on anything, or responsible for anything? Or can only men?

Really?

There's no point in talking to you.

 

[tall73]

Really?

Yes, really. Two people, one male, and one female, are consenting to sex that can lead to pregnancy. But if an unwanted pregnancy occurs you say only the man is responsible. That is completely illogical.

There's no point in talking to you.

That is up to you. But everyone can see you won't apply the same standard to the man and the woman when they both consented, even if they knew the percentage chance of contraception failure, as outlined by the article that you defended. So I am trying to find out why that may be.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, really. Two people, one male, and one female, are consenting to sex that can lead to pregnancy. But if an unwanted pregnancy occurs you say only the man is responsible. That is completely illogical.



That is up to you. But everyone can see you won't apply the same standard to the man and the woman when they both consented, even if they knew the percentage chance of contraception failure, as outlined by the article that you defended. So I am trying to find out why that may be.

Look, you've got your standard, and I've got mine. The only way we can go any further is for me to convince you that a blastocyst isn't a person, or for you to convince me that it is. And I don't think either of those is going to happen.

BTW, that "really" comment was at your apparent idea that I was somehow claiming women aren't responsible for anything.

 

[tall73]

Look, you've got your standard, and I've got mine. The only way we can go any further is for me to convince you that a blastocyst isn't a person, or for you to convince me that it is. And I don't think either of those is going to happen.

I agree it would be impossible to go further on the abortion topic at this time.

I cannot convince you that it is a person when you indicate you do not know what personhood is. You have indicated it is too complicated to provide a definiton, despite it being your standard. Since you cannot define your standard, it cannot be applied to any particular.

And if you don't know what a person is, it would be difficult to convince me that it is not a person as well.

BTW, that "really" comment was at your apparent idea that I was somehow claiming women aren't responsible for anything.

Yes, I gathered that the "really" response was in regards to that. I was clarifying based on the article you posted, and some of your responses. It is not normally something I would think a person would hold to, but if you did hold to it then it would save time in the discussion to figure that out right away. And, one never knows, people hold all kinds of views on this site.

Now you seem to have clarified the point, and I will take your response to indicate that it is not at all the case.

But with that reason ruled out, there is still the question of why it is that you hold two people engaged together in the same act to different standards, holding one fully responsible, and the other not responsible at all.

Since we are not making any further progress on the abortion issue, no need to continue the clarification.

But if you ever decide to post that article as its own thread, and discuss your reasons for holding the man and woman engaged in consensual sex to different standards in regards to responsibility in a thread, I would likely join the discussion.

 

[FredVB]

I think laws are the wrong way we do things. We need communities where we learn the right values, and institutions that enable things to happen. So there could be institutions for children to be well-placed with those who would be good parents to them, who want them. In these days children should be adopted in preference to conceiving more children.

 

[IceJad]

There is a little girl, named Sally. She needs a kidney transplant or she will die. You are the only compatible donor available.

Should you be forced you to give up one of your kidneys to save her life?

Why or why not?

No one must be forced to reduce their biological functions to safe a life. It must always be voluntary or at least a fair exchange in return. Guilt tripping an innocent person to sacrifice is abhorrent.

Also there is no guarantee that the forced donor will not in the future require that kidney due to one failing thus putting the donor in the same situation as Sally.

Freedom of choice is the keyword.

 

[IceJad]

Ah what a surprise that this devolved into the abortion subject. Just let me put it out there my views on this situation vs abortion.

In this situation you're innocent in Sally's kidney failure therefore must be presented the choice to save Sallly. Forced donation is unacceptable. Both are innocent parties.

In abortion you're directly responsible for the baby. Your actions resulted in another life growing in your body. Apart from you the fetus will parish. In this case the baby is innocent you're not. The only exceptions I'll ever make will be for sexual assault and danger to the mother.

 

[Kylie]

Ah what a surprise that this devolved into the abortion subject. Just let me put it out there my views on this situation vs abortion.

In this situation you're innocent in Sally's kidney failure therefore must be presented the choice to save Sallly. Forced donation is unacceptable. Both are innocent parties.

In abortion you're directly responsible for the baby. Your actions resulted in another life growing in your body. Apart from you the fetus will parish. In this case the baby is innocent you're not. The only exceptions I'll ever make will be for sexual assault and danger to the mother.

So would you hold the position that people shouldn't have sex except for procreation?

 

[IceJad]

So would you hold the position that people shouldn't have sex except for procreation?

You can have as such as you want. Your choice of lifestyle is none of my concerns. But don't feign ignorance that sex make babies. And when the baby happens don't be irresponsible.

For procreation or fun the potential result is obvious. And you're directly responsible for that outcome.

 

[Kylie]

You can have as such as you want. Your choice of lifestyle is none of my concerns. But don't feign ignorance that sex make babies. And when the baby happens don't be irresponsible.

For procreation or fun the potential result is obvious. And you're directly responsible for that outcome.

It still basically comes down to saying that people who do not want a baby should not have sex.