Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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 is an early form of human, who begins to have heartbeat at about 3 weeks after fertilization.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.
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.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.
No. But we should want to give up our kidney. I'm assuming I have good kidneys. And would be a good match.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?
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?
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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?
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.It seems like the point of this thread is not about kidney donation, but about abortion, which is what I had been responding to:
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.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.
No, but I have addressed the difference between the two in post #337.Are the deaths of those who die waiting for organs somehow less permanent?
What if you're a pig?No, because it's a matter of personal bodily autonomy.
Donating an organ is morally virtuous but not morally obligatory.
No. But we should want to give up our kidney. I'm assuming I have good kidneys. And would be a good match.
No, because it's a matter of personal bodily autonomy.
Donating an organ is morally virtuous but not morally obligatory.
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!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?