My Kidney Challenge II

[Hammster]

My focus is that the two situations are completely different, and you seem incapable of seeing that.

Are we just going to go in circles around this point? Because if so, I don't see the point in wasting my time.

They aren’t different according to you. In both cases, you are using part of your body to save a life.

 

[Kylie]

They aren’t different according to you. In both cases, you are using part of your body to save a life.

Have you been ignoring my posts?

I very clearly stated WHY it is different.

Just back in post 156, I said (and I'll highlight the bit that explains it is different):

And you don't seem to get that if someone carries a pregnancy to term, then invests years raising their child, loving them and nurturing them, then they are NOT likely to turn around and say, "Meh, whatever, I don't care one way or the other."​

While both are using a part of your body to save a life, the MOTIVATION is very different. I am at a loss as to how you are apparently unable to see this.

 

[Hammster]

Have you been ignoring my posts?

I very clearly stated WHY it is different.

Just back in post 156, I said (and I'll highlight the bit that explains it is different):

And you don't seem to get that if someone carries a pregnancy to term, then invests years raising their child, loving them and nurturing them, then they are NOT likely to turn around and say, "Meh, whatever, I don't care one way or the other."​

While both are using a part of your body to save a life, the MOTIVATION is very different. I am at a loss as to how you are apparently unable to see this.

I get that. I’m not saying that you are wrong. I’m pointing out that by your own standards, if someone is motivated to not donate a kidney to their child, you have absolutely no grounds to say that they are wrong.

 

[Kylie]

I get that. I’m not saying that you are wrong. I’m pointing out that by your own standards, if someone is motivated to not donate a kidney to their child, you have absolutely no grounds to say that they are wrong.

I agree that it is their decision. But you claimed that a person finding they are pregnant and deciding not to go through with the pregnancy is the same thing as a person raising a child for years and then deciding they don't want the child and letting it die by withholding treatment.

From your posts, emphasis mine:

Post 122 "If you decided that you don’t want to give the needed kidney to your child, in your morality it would be just as okay as not giving the child your uterus and killing it before birth."

Post 127 "I’m saying that you if you decided to let at child die at ten years old, it’s no different than murdering the child pre birth. You’ve made it clear you are under no moral obligation to keep your child alive."

You repeatedly said there was no difference between the two situations, and I said that there was a huge difference:

Post 94: "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."

 

[Hammster]

I agree that it is their decision. But you claimed that a person finding they are pregnant and deciding not to go through with the pregnancy is the same thing as a person raising a child for years and then deciding they don't want the child and letting it die by withholding treatment.

From your posts, emphasis mine:

Post 122 "If you decided that you don’t want to give the needed kidney to your child, in your morality it would be just as okay as not giving the child your uterus and killing it before birth."

Post 127 "I’m saying that you if you decided to let at child die at ten years old, it’s no different than murdering the child pre birth. You’ve made it clear you are under no moral obligation to keep your child alive."

You repeatedly said there was no difference between the two situations, and I said that there was a huge difference:

Post 94: "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."

Well, I guess you did find one difference. One is intentional murder, and the other is neglect. However, the child is just as dead in the end either way. The problem you have in your worldview, though, is that there’s no difference in the morality of either choice.

 

[Kylie]

Well, I guess you did find one difference. One is intentional murder, and the other is neglect. However, the child is just as dead in the end either way. The problem you have in your worldview, though, is that there’s no difference in the morality of either choice.

Again, you are wrong, twice.

Firstly, I do not view abortion as murder, since it is not. It's not murder in the same way that crushing an acorn is not the same thing as chopping down an oak tree.

Secondly, if you claim there is no difference in the morality, then you are claiming that being neglectful is equivalent to murder. You'll have a tough time convincing me of that, considering that even courts view them as different things.

In any case, if saying that you won't donate a kidney to someone who needs it and thereby letting them die is neglectful, I suppose the fact that you haven't donated a kidney to whoever needs it is neglectful as well?

 

[Hammster]

Again, you are wrong, twice.

Firstly, I do not view abortion as murder, since it is not. It's not murder in the same way that crushing an acorn is not the same thing as chopping down an oak tree.

Secondly, if you claim there is no difference in the morality, then you are claiming that being neglectful is equivalent to murder. You'll have a tough time convincing me of that, considering that even courts view them as different things.

In any case, if saying that you won't donate a kidney to someone who needs it and thereby letting them die is neglectful, I suppose the fact that you haven't donated a kidney to whoever needs it is neglectful as well?

I have no illusion that I can convince you of anything. I’m just pointing out that to not give a kidney to your child, in your worldview, is no different than an abortion because it “my body, my choice”.

 

[Kylie]

I have no illusion that I can convince you of anything. I’m just pointing out that to not give a kidney to your child, in your worldview, is no different than an abortion because it “my body, my choice”.

Once again you say something I have told you multiple times is not true. It is NOT "no different." I've already explained how it is different. You even admitted that it was different in post 165, only three posts ago!

 

[Hammster]

Once again you say something I have told you multiple times is not true. It is NOT "no different." I've already explained how it is different. You even admitted that it was different in post 165, only three posts ago!

Let’s test that, then. Is it wrong to deny your child your kidney if he or she needs it? If so, why?

 

[Kylie]

Let’s test that, then. Is it wrong to deny your child your kidney if he or she needs it? If so, why?

I personally wouldn't deny them. I have a close relationship with my daughter, and I would do a lot for her. But you are asking me as though it's an objective thing, and I've stated in other threads that I do not believe that morality is objective. While I freely agree that I think it would be right for me to give her a kidney if she needs ones, I wouldn't say it is right for every parent to hold the same opinion.

 

[Hammster]

I personally wouldn't deny them. I have a close relationship with my daughter, and I would do a lot for her. But you are asking me as though it's an objective thing, and I've stated in other threads that I do not believe that morality is objective. While I freely agree that I think it would be right for me to give her a kidney if she needs ones, I wouldn't say it is right for every parent to hold the same opinion.

That’s not the question I asked, though. I asked if it would be wrong for you to deny your child a kidney, and if so, why?

 

[Kylie]

That’s not the question I asked, though. I asked if it would be wrong for you to deny your child a kidney, and if so, why?

And as I said, I think it would be wrong for ME to deny it, though (as I also clearly said), I believe that morality is subjective, not objective, so the fact that I think it would be wrong for ME to deny MY child a kidney, I would not believe that it must therefore be true of everyone.

I've answered your question. Don't cry foul about it because you are proceeding from the point of view that morality is objective and I am not.

 

[Hammster]

And as I said, I think it would be wrong for ME to deny it, though (as I also clearly said), I believe that morality is subjective, not objective, so the fact that I think it would be wrong for ME to deny MY child a kidney, I would not believe that it must therefore be true of everyone.

I've answered your question. Don't cry foul about it because you are proceeding from the point of view that morality is objective and I am not.

Why would it be wrong for you to deny your child?

 

[tall73]

Yes, I'm just trying to figure out why you've started talking about hysterectomies.

Because in your scenario the kidney is being donated, and the person donating it will no longer have it.

Carrying a baby in the uterus does not remove the uterus. The poster was noting that the scenarios are not parallel.

 

[tall73]

The scenarios are not parallel.

In the kidney scenario the person who is donating did not bring about the need for a kidney in the person.

In pregnancy the people engaging in sex did bring about the need for the baby to live in the uterus.

Do you REALLY think that responsible sex means birth control never fails?.

Of course birth control can fail. The failure rate is often published, based on proper use (and can be higher with improper use). That is why engaging in sex between a fertile man and a fertile woman carries with it the potential for life.

Do you think a man having sex with a woman should have to pay child support if the birth control methods used fail? What if he didn't want the child?

He is required to pay child support because he engaged in an act that can lead to life, even when that is not the desired outcome, and even if prevention methods are used.

 

[Larniavc]

No, I shouldn't be forced to give up one of my organs to save the life of another human being whether it is a child or a full-grown adult. . It should be a personal decision of the person who is compatible with my organs.

I did make a personal decision not to become an organ donor... why? Because it's my choice... I also don't want hospitals getting the idea that they can make any excuses to pull the plug on me because of my organ donation card... to harvest my organs for profit... yes hospitals profit off of organ transplants... prove me otherwise.

So you think that a hospital would be ready and willing to kill you to harvest your organs but that they would not do so because you didn’t have a card?

C’mon.

 

[renniks]

Where is it written that you have an automatic responsibility to a person just because they are related to you?

If Sally was your family member, would it be acceptable to force you then?

That's not relatable to abortion. Taking a life deliberately isn't the same as refusing to save a life.

If you murder someone you are a murderer. If you don't save someone's life you are just being irresponsible.

 

[Larniavc]

Because in your scenario the kidney is being donated, and the person donating it will no longer have it.

Carrying a baby in the uterus does not remove the uterus. The poster was noting that the scenarios are not parallel.

The birth could kill you. That’s even worse.

 

[Hammster]

The birth could kill you. That’s even worse.

Not normally.

 

[tall73]

The birth could kill you. That’s even worse.

Yes, it could kill you, but at the time when that becomes a possibility it would be a another moral calculation with new factors. It doesn't make the two situations parallel, in that one involves the use of an organ, and the other the loss of an organ.

That is why some use scenarios where the use of the organ would be needed, such as the violinist:

A Defense of Abortion - Wikipedia

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

While the analogy is more contrived, it still is more parallel due to the time investment of 9 months, the inconvenience factor, the use of the organ, etc.

Of course, the violinist also fails to deal with the choice to have sex given the possibility of pregnancy, and the resulting part played in the situation.