My Kidney Challenge II

[Hammster]

In both cases I am refusing to let a part of my body be used to keep another person alive.

Well for starters, at least you admit that what is in the womb is a baby. That’s good.

Here’s the problem, though. If my child needed a kidney, and I could give them one, even if it meant my death, I’d do it just like I’d run into a burning building to do so. It’s possible I’d give your child a kidney if they needed one, but only if there was no risk to me since I still have a family line to consider.

Obversely, if you are going to be consistent you’d feel justified not giving your kidney to your child because it’s your body. Nor would you feel any obligation to run into a burning building to say your child because as you’ve stated, it’s not your body. I know these facts must be true because you’d have no problem aborting what you’ve already admitted was a baby because in your mind, you aren’t obligated to use your uterus for that purpose.

 

[Kylie]

Well for starters, at least you admit that what is in the womb is a baby. That’s good.

It's irrelevant to the discussion. I think there's a good argument to be made that it's not a person, not yet, but that's irrelevant to my argument here, which is why I'm not addressing it.

Here’s the problem, though. If my child needed a kidney, and I could give them one, even if it meant my death, I’d do it just like I’d run into a burning building to do so. It’s possible I’d give your child a kidney if they needed one, but only if there was no risk to me since I still have a family line to consider.

Obversely, if you are going to be consistent you’d feel justified not giving your kidney to your child because it’s your body. Nor would you feel any obligation to run into a burning building to say your child because as you’ve stated, it’s not your body. I know these facts must be true because you’d have no problem aborting what you’ve already admitted was a baby because in your mind, you aren’t obligated to use your uterus for that purpose.

No, you are arguing a strawman.

I've never said that you should not give your child a kidney, even if it would mean your death.

I have said that a person must be free to choose not to. They must have the choice, and anti abortion laws are taking that choice away. They are denying people their bodily autonomy.

 

[Sabertooth]

Correction - I'm comparing a uterus to a kidney.

And that's the same right that would allow a woman to say that she doesn't want to use her uterus to keep someone else alive...

Did I call it...?

(Playing the devil's advocate,)
"So, why should a woman be forced to surrender her womb to keep somebody else alive...?"

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, and I'm talking about MY uterus, which (if I'm not mistaken) is part of MY body.

I think you confuse a hysterectomy with a direct abortion.

Your suggested adjustment would have me asking if I can force another person to give up their heart to save another. And to that I say now, because (I'm sure we can both agree) I do not have the right to tell another person what they must do with their body. It doesn't matter if someone will die if they refuse. That person MUST have the right to decide what happens with their own body.

Yes, you're right. The "kidney challenge" as a parallel to abortion is fatally flawed and beyond redemption. The parallel to abortion would be that someone with a perfectly good heart would force another to have their heart excised and discarded.

And that's the same right that would allow a woman to say that she doesn't want to use her uterus to keep someone else alive.

Well, what a lovely (charitable) person she must be. Let's recommend she try celibacy next time.

 

[Hammster]

It's irrelevant to the discussion. I think there's a good argument to be made that it's not a person, not yet, but that's irrelevant to my argument here, which is why I'm not addressing it.



No, you are arguing a strawman.

I've never said that you should not give your child a kidney, even if it would mean your death.

I have said that a person must be free to choose not to. They must have the choice, and anti abortion laws are taking that choice away. They are denying people their bodily autonomy.

And you’d have no problem NOT giving your kidney to your child. If you are willing to murder it in the womb, you should also be willing to let it die outside the womb.

 

[Bradskii]

And you’d have no problem NOT giving your kidney to your child. If you are willing to murder it in the womb, you should also be willing to let it die outside the womb.

I guess we could look at a woman's attitude to both.

Let's say one woman goes to see the doctor with some cramps. The doctor tells her that she was recently pregnant but she's had a miscarriage.

A second woman goes to see the doctor to find out how her two year old is getting on in hospital and the doctor says that the child died overnight.

Do you think they would react the same?

 

[Hammster]

I guess we could look at a woman's attitude to both.

Let's say one woman goes to see the doctor with some cramps. The doctor tells her that she was recently pregnant but she's had a miscarriage.

A second woman goes to see the doctor to find out how her two year old is getting on in hospital and the doctor says that the child died overnight.

Do you think they would react the same?

I don’t see the point in talking about emotional responses since every woman is different.

 

[Bradskii]

I don’t see the point in talking about emotional responses since every woman is different.

Let's say it was the same woman a couple of years apart. Do you think her reactions would be different?

 

[Hammster]

Let's say it was the same woman a couple of years apart. Do you think her reactions would be different?

I don’t know. People change. And I can’t see the relevance.

 

[Bradskii]

I don’t know. People change. And I can’t see the relevance.

Really? You don't think that a woman would grieve deeply over the loss of a two year old child much more than a pregnancy that was a couple of weeks old?

You don't see any relevance in that whatsoever?

 

[Hammster]

Really? You don't think that a woman would grieve deeply over the loss of a two year old child much more than a pregnancy that was a couple of weeks old?

You don't see any relevance in that whatsoever?

I know women who have had miscarriages and grieved deeply. However, this is irrelevant to this thread.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

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?

Absolutely not!! That would be a violation of my individual rights. The premise being smuggled in here is that someone else's need places some kind of obligation on me to sacrifice a value that is mine.

It is medically possible to transplant the cornea from a healthy person to another person who needs it because it would bring back his vision. Should the government force people with two healthy corneas to sacrifice one? No!!! Another person's need does not give them a mortgage on anyone's life or property.

I need now to define what a sacrifice is. A sacrifice is the giving up of a value for a lesser value or no value at all. Why stop at one kidney. You could make the ultimate sacrifice and give up both. If need is the standard and the other people need it why wouldn't you give up both? If you would then you need your head examined.

You can choose to donate the kidney if you want or give up one of your eyes if you want but you can never be forced. The initiation of force is always immoral.

 

[Kylie]

I think you confuse a hysterectomy with a direct abortion.

What in the world are you talking about?

Yes, you're right. The "kidney challenge" as a parallel to abortion is fatally flawed and beyond redemption. The parallel to abortion would be that someone with a perfectly good heart would force another to have their heart excised and discarded.

No it's not.

"Hey, person X, we are going to force you to use <YOUR BODY PART HERE> to keep another person alive, and we don't care if you don't like it!"

It's the same thing.

Well, what a lovely (charitable) person she must be. Let's recommend she try celibacy next time.

Ah yes, completely ignore the fact that people enjoy having sex.

And what about cases of rape?

The "don't have sex unless you're willing to be forced to go through a pregnancy" argument is disgusting.

 

[Kylie]

And you’d have no problem NOT giving your kidney to your child. If you are willing to murder it in the womb, you should also be willing to let it die outside the womb.

You can't honestly think that's a valid argument?

Not allowing your uterus to be used to have a pregnancy that you don't want is nothing like giving up a kidney to save the life of a child you DO want.

 

[Bradskii]

I know women who have had miscarriages and grieved deeply. However, this is irrelevant to this thread.

It's about attitudes to abortion. And I'll answer my own question: Women feel the death of a child vastly more that they do a miscarriage. That's as obvious a statement as I could make. I'll leave you to to ponder why.

 

[trophy33]

What about laws that force me to REMAIN pregnant?

Your kidney analogy fails to represent them, though. Its a different position.

"We will force you to stay in the situation you have created"

is not analogical to:

"we will force you to get into a situation you have not created (which is your OP logic)".

 

[Kylie]

Your kidney analogy fails to represent them, though. Its a different position.

"We will force you to stay in the situation you have created" is not analogical to "we will force you to get into/to create the situation (which is your OP logic)".

You make it sound like becoming pregnant is solely the action of the woman, and she always has full knowledge of it occurring. Neither of those things is true.

And are you suggesting that if you had a kidney taken from you, you wouldn't want to take some action about it?

 

[trophy33]

You make it sound like becoming pregnant is solely the action of the woman, and she always has full knowledge of it occurring. Neither of those things is true.

I do not think that so many women today are ignorant about the fact that sex leads to pregnancy.

YouAnd are you suggesting that if you had a kidney taken from you, you wouldn't want to take some action about it?

I am suggesting nothing about kidneys, I think this analogy of yours as a whole does not work.

 

[Kylie]

I do not think that so many women today are ignorant about the fact that sex leads to pregnancy.

You seem to think that sex should only be done for procreation.

I am suggesting nothing about kidneys, I think this analogy of yours as a whole does not work.

But the principle behind the analogy is a valid one - no person is obligated to make their body available for the use of another if they do not wish it.

It's called bodily autonomy, and it's a fundamental Human right.

 

[trophy33]

You seem to think that sex should only be done for procreation.

It would solve tons of problems in the current society.

But its not necessary when the one who is doing it just for a bit of fleshy pleasure understands that it naturally leads to pregnancy and that this is a risk he/she must reckon with.

But the principle behind the analogy is a valid one - no person is obligated to make their body available for the use of another if they do not wish it.

Depends on the context. Your kidney analogy has a different context than pregnancy and that is why it fails to be a good analogy.

For example, I can say "should you be forced to stay in your room for years?" and argue against prisons this way.