My Kidney Challenge II

Should you be made to give up one of your kidneys in the scenario presented in the opening post?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • No

    Votes: 14 93.3%

  • Total voters
    15

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
13,799
4,979
✟256,185.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I see how you switched terms from "humans", which you first used, because you realized your mistake. And now you have inserted "person" as that doesn't then run afoul of your own statement.

Quibbling about wordplay is a sure sign that someone can't actually address the argument.

I see an acorn as oak, and the fertilized egg as human. You are the one arguing for a personhood distinction now instead of humans having bodily autonomy. So what makes a person?

So if I crush an acorn under my heel, will you tell people that I destroyed an oak tree?
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
13,799
4,979
✟256,185.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Peter, when God told him in vision to eat unclean meat, objected and did not do so, because the law commanded him not to do so. And so if he told me I could do these things (a better hypothetical might be if He commanded me to do them), I would ask questions. He eventually clarified to Peter, though not quite as simply as Peter would have probably preferred. Ultimately if God says I could do something, then I could.

In the same way gentiles were not required to be circumcised by the Acts 15 council, and while this was a problem to some in the church, it was still said to be a decision of the Holy Spirit, and so was correct.

So is this a yes you would go out and murder/steal/etc, or is it a no?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,306
5,558
Visit site
✟688,631.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married


Kylie said:

You might as well ask how we know we don't have the right to not be killed.


tall73 said:


Yes I might!

Job 13:15a Though he slay me, I will hope in him;

Job trusted God even if God slayed him. He had some questions on God's justice. But he got over that.



How you take that passage to mean that you don't have the right to not be murdered in your sleep by your neighbour who wants your TV is beyond me.


Well first of all, you may have meant to say:

You might as well ask how we know we have the right to not be killed.

But you actually said:

You might as well ask how we know we don't have the right to not be killed.

The double negative makes things a bit different.

But more to the point, I accept God's imposition of His morality. Job also, though he questioned God's actions, trusted God, even if it meant God killed Job. In other words, this is an example of how not everyone thinks they have the right to not be killed, if it is God doing the killing.

But again, you have already demonstrated that you are not a relative moralist. And now we can add a third absolute principle that you apply to more than just yourself:

a. Can't impose morality on others.
b. "persons" have bodily autonomy
c. "persons" (I assume we are using the new term again to exclude the fertilized egg) have a right not to be killed.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
13,799
4,979
✟256,185.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I take your earlier posts as surrender on this point, and you are not a subjective moralist.

If you insist on deciding what I am saying rather than listening to what I have to say for myself, there is no point in having a discussion with you.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
13,799
4,979
✟256,185.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I never said anything about wanting the last word. You have me confused with another member.

Since you won’t confirm your view, I will assume that my understanding is clear. You made a moral distinction that it’s wrong to push morality on another person. Yet, you want to push this moral position on me. This is unsustainable.

If you want to push your moral position on others, go right ahead. But don't be surprised when the person you are pushing your moral position onto tells you to leave in some rather rude language.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,306
5,558
Visit site
✟688,631.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If there's a person who wishes to give up such rights, then I'll accept it.

Great.

But you still haven't built the argument for why everyone has bodily autonomy in the first place. And again you reduce everything to "want".

Do you ever have a moral principle that goes against what you might want?

But it's safe to say that most people want to decide what happens to their own body.

I would think that includes the baby in the womb that pulls back from the pain of an abortion as its limbs are torn from its body.

Ah, so since it's got Human DNA, the argument is valid. But if it's got canine DNA, then the argument is invalid because... reasons.

Yes, a fertilized human egg has human DNA and is human. A canine fertilized egg has canine DNA, and is not human.

There is no single point in time. It's a gradual transition. It's like asking what time does it stop being daytime and start being night time.

So then if you base bodily autonomy on personhood, shouldn't you then be protecting it all along so as to not violate your principles through misperception?

I assume you have some time that is definitely including personhood. Is it for instance the time of completed brain development, in the 20's or is it some time earlier?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,306
5,558
Visit site
✟688,631.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Quibbling about wordplay is a sure sign that someone can't actually address the argument.

Hardly! You having to change terms to a different one to make your argument work is a sure sign that your argument was flawed.

A fertilized human egg is human, and has human DNA. So if humans have bodily autonomy that extends to the fertilized egg.

So then you changed it to "person".

That is not "word play" and pointing it out is not "quibbling". That is you backing away from your previous statement, and inserting a different term to allow the fertilized egg to not fall within the criteria.

So if I crush an acorn under my heel, will you tell people that I destroyed an oak tree?

You destroyed an oak, not a frog or a fishing boat. An acorn from an oak tree is still oak in nature.

So if you said that all oaks had a right to not be crushed, I would include the acorn.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hammster

Proudly Narrow-Minded
Staff member
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
135,138
24,406
54
New Heaven and New Earth
Visit site
✟1,494,762.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
If you want to push your moral position on others, go right ahead. But don't be surprised when the person you are pushing your moral position onto tells you to leave in some rather rude language.
I can’t determine if you just don’t understand the argument, or you do understand and are just avoiding the consequences. When you neglect to address my point, it’s kinda murky.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,306
5,558
Visit site
✟688,631.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you insist on deciding what I am saying rather than listening to what I have to say for myself, there is no point in having a discussion with you.

I have very much listened to what you said. You have posited three moral absolutes that you apply to people.

That doesn't fit with subjective morality where each determines what is moral for themselves.

I asked you to pick, either moral principles that apply to all, such as bodily autonomy, or each making their own system. And you picked, saying that people have autonomy. So was that not an admission of you backing away from relative morality?

If you say you are two things that don't go together, then I have to ask you to explain, to pick one. You did pick one, so how am I not listening?

You said @Hammster was not listening. But we are all running into the same problem. You can't think that everyone makes their own moral system, AND have universal moral principles that apply to all, even when some plainly tell you they don't agree with them (such as @Hammster saying his system DOES say you impose morality on others).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,306
5,558
Visit site
✟688,631.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I can’t determine if you just don’t understand the argument, or you do understand and are just avoiding the consequences. When you neglect to address my point, it’s kinda murky.

Yes, you have tried, and you have listened. We both have the same issue here. She cannot hold to subjective morality where each makes their own moral system AND hold to absolute moral principles that apply to all "persons" simultaneously.

If she says that it is a universal moral principle that you cannot impose your morality on another, then that is choosing objective morality with a definite moral absolute which applies to all.

And therefore, it cannot be subjective, where everyone decides.

She is rejecting your morality, and imposing her system on you. You wish to impose your morality (which was imposed upon you), on everyone. And she says you can't do that, because of this absolute that you cannot impose your morality on another.

So she is thereby denying that people can make their own subjective morality, and appealing to a universal principle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hammster
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
13,799
4,979
✟256,185.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Great.

But you still haven't built the argument for why everyone has bodily autonomy in the first place. And again you reduce everything to "want".

Where would we be without it? Without the right to bodily autonomy, someone else would be able to force you to do whatever they wanted without regards to your own desires. That's called slavery. Do you think that's a good idea?

Do you ever have a moral principle that goes against what you might want?

Yeah. Quite a few times I've wanted to punch someone in the face, or tell them to go away in very rude language, but I have not done so.

I would think that includes the baby in the womb that pulls back from the pain of an abortion as its limbs are torn from its body.

Okay then, let's go with that.

In order to feel pain, the fetus (and don't even think about quibbling over the fact that I said fetus instead of person, human, baby, or whatever other word you want to use) requires a developed central nervous system. The clinical evidence indicates that a fetus can't feel pain until about 23 weeks post gestation.

"Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks." SOURCE

At this point, I will point out that nearly 99% of abortions take place before 14 weeks gestation. SOURCE

Yes, a fertilized human egg has human DNA and is human. A canine fertilized egg has canine DNA, and is not human.

So why the difference? Why is your argument valid for Humans but not for dogs?

So then if you base bodily autonomy on personhood, shouldn't you then be protecting it all along so as to not violate your principles through misperception?

That's like saying, "If there's no point in time when it stops being daytime and starts being nighttime, shouldn't we just always take it to be nighttime, even when the sun is out?"

I assume you have some time that is definitely including personhood. Is it for instance the time of completed brain development, in the 20's or is it some time earlier?

I'd say we can definitely consider personhood exists at birth. I probably wouldn't argue if you wanted to say that personhood exists at the time the nervous system is formed, or at the age when the baby can survive outside the womb, though the earliest premature babies to survive have been born around the 22/23 week mark, so it's pretty much the same time.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
1,235
119
Private
✟35,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It is not a tomato. It is not a fish. It is person in development.
So we may murder anyone, say, less than 25 years old?

Maturation of the adolescent brain
The development and maturation of the prefrontal cortex occurs primarily during adolescence and is fully accomplished at the age of 25 years.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
13,799
4,979
✟256,185.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So we may murder anyone, say, less than 25 years old?

Maturation of the adolescent brain
The development and maturation of the prefrontal cortex occurs primarily during adolescence and is fully accomplished at the age of 25 years.

Really?

There really is no point in trying to talk to you when you say things like this.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,306
5,558
Visit site
✟688,631.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where would we be without it? Without the right to bodily autonomy, someone else would be able to force you to do whatever they wanted without regards to your own desires. That's called slavery. Do you think that's a good idea?

Depends.

I think if God does it, then it is good, and He is doing what is best for us. He is our Creator and Redeemer and is sovereign over us.

If it is a person that wants to impose morality it might depend on the reason.

I come at that from a religious perspective, and you, since you have an atheist icon, would presumably not hold to such a view, which i understand.

So I asked you the basis of that moral principle you proposed to see what you base it on. Now you have proposed that if we didn't have it then some could force us to do something.

So are there ever instances where we should force someone to do something?

If a small child is running into traffic should you grab them and stop them, even if they don't like it at the time?

If a child only wants to eat cake for every meal, should the child be allowed to do so?

If a person is a danger to others because of a mental condition should they be restrained from harming people, by detention if necessary?

If a friend was starting a medication with a possible side effect of suicidal ideation and shortly thereafter wanted to kill themselves, would you try to stop them?

I would see the above as different than experimenting on people without consent, for instance, due to the mitigating factors.

Yeah. Quite a few times I've wanted to punch someone in the face, or tell them to go away in very rude language, but I have not done so.

Why didn't you?


I would think that includes the baby in the womb that pulls back from the pain of an abortion as its limbs are torn from its body.

Okay then, let's go with that.

In order to feel pain, the fetus (and don't even think about quibbling over the fact that I said fetus instead of person, human, baby, or whatever other word you want to use) requires a developed central nervous system. The clinical evidence indicates that a fetus can't feel pain until about 23 weeks post gestation.

"Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks." SOURCE
Reconsidering fetal pain

This discusses more recent data calling into question the necessity of the cortex for pain experience. They have a fairly restrictive copyright usage, so I won't quote from it here, but you can read the details.

That still would bring us to around the 14 weeks you reference below.

At this point, I will point out that nearly 99% of abortions take place before 14 weeks gestation. SOURCE

So would you then oppose any abortion after 14 weeks on the basis of potential pain experience?

Yes, a fertilized human egg has human DNA and is human. A canine fertilized egg has canine DNA, and is not human.
So why the difference? Why is your argument valid for Humans but not for dogs?

You asked this before and I do not know what argument you are referring to.

a human fertilized egg is human.
a canine fertilzed egg is canine.

You haven't mentioned extending bodily autonomy to canines. But you did to humans, before changing it to persons. I was noting that if humans have bodily autonomy, that would then include the fertilized egg, as it is human, alive, and has its own unique DNA.

I think canines are living, have their own DNA. But I don't extend bodily autonomy to them.

If you do or do not may be interesting to hear you explain, but the reason for examining this point in the first place is that you said humans have bodily autonomy.

That's like saying, "If there's no point in time when it stops being daytime and starts being nighttime, shouldn't we just always take it to be nighttime, even when the sun is out?"

Whether you think it is night time or daytime in a dusk scenario for instance is not a moral consideration. If you posit that people have bodily autonomy once they are persons then determining when that happens becomes important to moral considerations under that scheme.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,306
5,558
Visit site
✟688,631.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You seem to think that irresponsible sex is any sex that is not done with the intention of producing a child.


Irresponsible sex is rejecting the results of your own choices and then exterminating the life that came from those choices.

If a fertile man and a fertile woman are having sex there is the possibility of life. And by engaging in sex, with protection or not, they are accepting that possibility.

I noted earlier the example of a man being responsible for child support. Now you note that all persons have bodily autonomy.

So should the man have to give a portion of his labor for 18 years if he doesn't want to? The law usually says yes. Because he made his choice when he had sex.

Other than cases of rape, the woman also made her choice when engaging in sex.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
13,799
4,979
✟256,185.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

So you've criticised me for being inconsistent, yet you respond like this.

Why didn't you?

Because I'd be banned from a website, or be faced with legal action, etc.

I would think that includes the baby in the womb that pulls back from the pain of an abortion as its limbs are torn from its body.

The source I provided specifically addresses this: "Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks."

Reconsidering fetal pain

This discusses more recent data calling into question the necessity of the cortex for pain experience. They have a fairly restrictive copyright usage, so I won't quote from it here, but you can read the details.

That still would bring us to around the 14 weeks you reference below.

So would you oppose an abortion before 13 weeks?

So would you then oppose any abortion after 14 weeks on the basis of potential pain experience?

Excuse me, the source I provided indicates that pain experience doesn't occur until about 29 or 30 weeks. And I don't remember agreeing to discard my source and take yours as gospel truth.

You asked this before and I do not know what argument you are referring to.

a human fertilized egg is human.
a canine fertilzed egg is canine.

You haven't mentioned extending bodily autonomy to canines. But you did to humans, before changing it to persons. I was noting that if humans have bodily autonomy, that would then include the fertilized egg, as it is human, alive, and has its own unique DNA.

I think canines are living, have their own DNA. But I don't extend bodily autonomy to them.

So if I want to treat my dogs like garbage, beat them, starve them, make them work hard, etc, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

Whether you think it is night time or daytime in a dusk scenario for instance is not a moral consideration. If you posit that people have bodily autonomy once they are persons then determining when that happens becomes important to moral considerations under that scheme.

It's irrelevant whether it's a moral situation or not.

The fact that it's a situation where the transition from one state to another is vaguely defined is the issue at stake here.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
13,799
4,979
✟256,185.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Irresponsible sex is rejecting the results of your own choices and then exterminating the life that came from those choices.

If a fertile man and a fertile woman are having sex there is the possibility of life. And by engaging in sex, with protection or not, they are accepting that possibility.

I noted earlier the example of a man being responsible for child support. Now you note that all persons have bodily autonomy.

So should the man have to give a portion of his labor for 18 years if he doesn't want to? The law usually says yes. Because he made his choice when he had sex.

Other than cases of rape, the woman also made her choice when engaging in sex.

As I said before, perhaps all women should stop having sex with men. After all, we can have sex with other women with no chance of pregnancy.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,306
5,558
Visit site
✟688,631.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So you've criticised me for being inconsistent, yet you respond like this.

I said you were being inconsistent within your own framework, because you were claiming relative morality, then outlining moral principles that apply to all persons. That was inconsistent because you can't actually hold to both.

Within my framework, my view was consistent. God is the one who imposes morality in my framework. He is the one who has the right to dictate to me, even overruling bodily autonomy in my framework. People do not.

The source I provided specifically addresses this: "Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks."

The article I posted, from 2020, specifically addressed the arguments you present above from 2005 with new research. Those who read it will find this to be the case. Due to copyright regulations I cannot quote it here.

Excuse me, the source I provided indicates that pain experience doesn't occur until about 29 or 30 weeks. And I don't remember agreeing to discard my source and take yours as gospel truth.
You are excused. I did not stipulate the absolute truth of your source either.

So would you oppose abortions after 30 weeks based on your source?

So if I want to treat my dogs like garbage, beat them, starve them, make them work hard, etc, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

I would, but not on the basis that they have complete autonomy or self-determination, but that it is cruelty.

However, I wouldn't have a problem with you eating an animal, for instance, even if the animal may not prefer it.

It's irrelevant whether it's a moral situation or not.

Of course it is not if morality has any meaning. IF there is uncertainty then you would need to avoid the possibility of violating moral lines by being more cautious.

The fact that it's a situation where the transition from one state to another is vaguely defined is the issue at stake here.

Given that you haven't defined personhood yet, it cannot be anything but vaguely defined, which is why I asked what you meant by it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,306
5,558
Visit site
✟688,631.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
tall73 said:

Irresponsible sex is rejecting the results of your own choices and then exterminating the life that came from those choices.

If a fertile man and a fertile woman are having sex there is the possibility of life. And by engaging in sex, with protection or not, they are accepting that possibility.

I noted earlier the example of a man being responsible for child support. Now you note that all persons have bodily autonomy.

So should the man have to give a portion of his labor for 18 years if he doesn't want to? The law usually says yes. Because he made his choice when he had sex.

Other than cases of rape, the woman also made her choice when engaging in sex.


As I said before, perhaps all women should stop having sex with men. After all, we can have sex with other women with no chance of pregnancy.

Well, it is 2022, so you may need to revise that statement if you wish to avoid being labeled a TERF.

And of course some also go other directions:

Objectum-Sexuality Internationale - Homepage for Objectum-Sexuals & Objectum Sexuality info with Objectum sexual history

However, the question still remains: Should men have to pay child support?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0