My Kidney Challenge

[Kylie]

Sally is dying, but the baby inside the pregnant woman isn't dying. There is a difference between not directly involved with saving a dying person vs directly taking a healthy person's life.

It's not a baby, it's a ball of cells. It doesn't even begin to look like a human until about 12 weeks of development, and most abortions happen before that point. So we are not talking about something that can survive by itself - just like Sally.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

It's not a baby, it's a ball of cells. It doesn't even begin to look like a human until about 12 weeks of development, and most abortions happen before that point. So we are not talking about something that can survive by itself - just like Sally.

It is an early form of human, who begins to have heartbeat at about 3 weeks after fertilization.

Without intervention, Sally would not be able to survive by herself. In contrast, a healthy, early form of human would develop into a fully formed human without intervention.

 

[Kylie]

It is an early form of human, who begins to have heartbeat at about 3 weeks after fertilization.

Without intervention, Sally would not be able to survive by herself. In contrast, a healthy, early form of human would develop into a fully formed human without intervention.

Well, if the embryo can survive without intervention, I guess we don't need the mother then.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Well, if the embryo can survive without intervention, I guess we don't need the mother then.

When I said "intervention", I meant interfering with the course of a natural process. Abortion is an intervention which interferes with the natural process of the development of a human in a woman's womb by terminating its life prematurely.

 

[Kylie]

When I said "intervention", I meant interfering with the course of a natural process. Abortion is an intervention which interferes with the natural process of the development of a human in a woman's womb by terminating its life prematurely.

So you think it is perfectly acceptable to force a woman to spend nine months using her body for something she doesn't want it used for?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

There is a little girl, named Sally. She needs a kidney transplant or she will die.

Do I have the right to force you to give up one of your kidneys to save her life?

No. But we should want to give up our kidney. I'm assuming I have good kidneys. And would be a good match.

 

[FireDragon76]

There is a little girl, named Sally. She needs a kidney transplant or she will die.

Do I have the right to force you to give up one of your kidneys to save her life?

No, because it's a matter of personal bodily autonomy.

Donating an organ is morally virtuous but not morally obligatory.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

So you think it is perfectly acceptable to force a woman to spend nine months using her body for something she doesn't want it used for?

We need to look at it on a case-by-case basis and choose the lesser of two evils. If it is a choice between 9 months of inconvenience versus permanent loss of life, I'd say the latter is more unacceptable than the former.

Consider Michael Rotondo's case, would it be acceptable for his parents to kill him if the only way to get him to leave their house were to terminate his life?

 

[Desk trauma]

We need to look at it on a case-by-case basis and choose the lesser of two evils. If it is a choice between 9 months of inconvenience versus permanent loss of life, I'd say the latter is more unacceptable than the former.

Mandatory kidney and liver donation it is, after all recovery time from those operations are much less than nine months and people on the waiting list die on a daily basis.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Mandatory kidney and liver donation it is, after all recovery time from those operations are much less than nine months and people on the waiting list die on a daily basis.

It seems like the point of this thread is not really about kidney donation, but about abortion, which is what I had been responding to.

Okay, so now here's another question...

Why is it that we all agree that a person is not obligated to use parts of their body to keep others alive (even if the person with the useful body parts is dead), but then so many people suddenly change their mind when it's a pregnant woman who is being asked to use a part of her body to keep the life of another going?

Doesn't this seem like hypocrisy?

 

[Desk trauma]

It seems like the point of this thread is not about kidney donation, but about abortion, which is what I had been responding to:

I was working from the standard in your post about nine months of “inconvenience” being outweighed by another’s survival. That standard would carry over directly to others being able to demand a kidney, part of your liver or blood transfusions from you regardless of consent if they would die without it.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

I was working from the standard in your post about nine months of “inconvenience” being outweighed by another’s survival. That standard would carry over directly to others being able to demand a kidney, part of your liver or blood transfusions from you regardless of consent if they would die without it.

To be more specific, the "permanent loss of life" I referred to in my post is to actively kill your own child, as explained in that post.

 

[Desk trauma]

To be more specific, the "permanent loss of life" I referred to in my post is to actively kill your own child, as explained in that post.

Are the deaths of those who die waiting for organs somehow less permanent?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I could give one of my kidneys to someone. But my unborn fetus no. I would keep my fetus. Unless there was something wrong with it. Then I would terminate, if I wouldn't raise it . Maybe I should re think my kidney option. Since I wouldn't want someone to abuse my kidneys/ unborn fetus, or treat it like a miracle. Until my unborn fetus is behind closed doors. Better to terminate, than depending on fake people behind closed doors to raise it.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Are the deaths of those who die waiting for organs somehow less permanent?

No, but I have addressed the difference between the two in post #337.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No, because it's a matter of personal bodily autonomy.

Donating an organ is morally virtuous but not morally obligatory.

What if you're a pig?

Bid to grow transplant organs in pigs

Now I'm on the dehumanisaton track. What if the future of humanity is at stake, and the only potential donor is going to die soon, at the chair, and also he is a wicked fellow known for heinous crimes against humanity?

Or, would you call in the moralist and have him change conscience for a fairy tale ending?

 

[Kylie]

No. But we should want to give up our kidney. I'm assuming I have good kidneys. And would be a good match.

Then I am assuming that you will go to the hospital tomorrow and ask that they take one of your kidneys so that you can donate it to someone who needs it.

 

[Kylie]

No, because it's a matter of personal bodily autonomy.

Donating an organ is morally virtuous but not morally obligatory.

A matter of personal bodily autonomy, unless the organ in question is a uterus.

 

[Kylie]

We need to look at it on a case-by-case basis and choose the lesser of two evils. If it is a choice between 9 months of inconvenience versus permanent loss of life, I'd say the latter is more unacceptable than the former.

Consider Michael Rotondo's case, would it be acceptable for his parents to kill him if the only way to get him to leave their house were to terminate his life?

Wow, you think it's nine months inconvenience? And after that, your life goes back to the way it was before?

Oh, wait a while until I finish laughing!

 

[Chinchilla]

Wow, you think it's nine months inconvenience? And after that, your life goes back to the way it was before?

Oh, wait a while until I finish laughing!

According to Atheistic world view there are no moral values , we are vessels of atoms which produce this body and are just atoms which evolved from hydrogen towards everything else as time has passed , therefore we can only observe world and act as result of chemicals reacting in our brains giving response to our brain which gives orders to our muscles ect.

Because there is no free will , nor good or bad according to that world view you could force that woman to bear a child or steal somebody kidney to make somebody else survive as you choose . It's up to you.
For the one being raped it feels bad , but for the one who is raping it feels good . There are no bad or wrong in that world view . There is no God to give universal laws or morality . There is no future because when we die we just stop existing . Nobody is punished or rewrded for anything . There is no justice if you get away with what you consider was "bad" . As we observe our universe , everything is spreading in all directions and getting away from each other . Universe is always expanding which will result in cold death , cold because there will be no life due to all stars burning out and all matter so separate it cannot react with anything .

So according to that world view you can do anything to be honest .
Everything you say is pointless anyways or is your opinion , so i mine when I say something . Truth does not exist so why are you looking for it ? To make you feel better because you were right according to your presuppositions ? I never understood why atheists are asking such questions outside thier world view and judging the answers according to thier world view it's so foolish ...