My Kidney Challenge

[devolved]

In this hypothetical thread about organ theft, the kid hypothetically has a different blood type than mine; therefore if Kylie takes my kidney without my consent in order to save the kid’s life, Kylie will have murdered the poor child by transplanting a non-compatible kidney into it.


It is just a stupid hypothetical answer to a stupid immoral hypothetical question that I am truly surprised has gone so far as 600+ posts.

I'm beginning to understand why conservative right are so forcefully belligerent on this issue. I seems to be much more pragmatic that trying to convince someone that on a spectrum of continuum between 0 and 1 there's a point at which we'll be closer to 1 than to 0. In Kylie's mind such point doesn't seem to exist, thus Personhood is both "digital" in nature, yet it's somehow also not .

BTW. That's what a good chunk of these 600 posts sum up to.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

No one who support abortion would want to admit that the life inside the womb is a person, since it would result in a cognitive dissonance that they are supporting murder.

 

[Kylie]

No! - That involves the life of another person.

That didn't seem to bother you before, when little Sally was about to die.

 

[Kylie]

You completely (and I would now argue intentionally) missed the point. There is a time when we can tell that the gradient is clearly more green than orange. If you are failing to admit that, then you are not being honest here.

And you miss my point. You are claiming that there is a single point where it goes from "not being green majority" to "being green majority."

First of all, being green majority doesn't make it green. This square is mostly green, but it looks blue.

Secondly, while it is easy to measure the amount of colour something has, your argument seems to be dependent on being able to measure the amount of personness a developing embryo has. How do you propose to do this? Without some objective means to do this, it becomes subjective and you will get some people saying that the embryo is a person while other people say it isn't.

Again, I'll agree to disagree. I'll go back to arguing that unborn should have some basic rights to life, even if we follow through some technological means to maintain these in the future. You can go back to arguing that they can be chopped up to pieces and discarded, because you don't have to support their life with your body.

Let's say for a moment that we accept your position with the colour analogy, and we say that green deserves rights while orange doesn't. Most abortions are done very early on in pregnancy. To apply the colour analogy to it, the abortions are done before the colour is mostly green.

 

[nChrist]

That didn't seem to bother you before, when little Sally was about to die.

It's real simple, and you don't get it. You're not going to force anyone to donate body parts. The two scenarios aren't even close - like comparing grapes to watermelons.

 

[Kylie]

It's real simple, and you don't get it. You're not going to force anyone to donate body parts. The two scenarios aren't even close - like comparing grapes to watermelons.

No it's not. You said:

"What I do with my body parts before or after death is my business alone."
​

Being pregnant certainly counts as doing something with my body parts, doesn't it? If you have to impose arbitrary exceptions to say that I don't have to use my body parts to sustain life in one case, but I do in another case, then you've pretty much admitted that there is no objective truth here. That leaves us with subjective truth, and as such, it is up to each individual.

 

[Holoman]

No it's not. You said:

"What I do with my body parts before or after death is my business alone."
​

Being pregnant certainly counts as doing something with my body parts, doesn't it? If you have to impose arbitrary exceptions to say that I don't have to use my body parts to sustain life in one case, but I do in another case, then you've pretty much admitted that there is no objective truth here. That leaves us with subjective truth, and as such, it is up to each individual.

Being pregnant is not a condition that befalls someone. A man and woman chose to have sex, knowing the risks even with birth control.

The kidney scenario is in no way analogous.

 

[Kylie]

Being pregnant is not a condition that befalls someone. A man and woman chose to have sex, knowing the risks even with birth control.

Excuse me - the risks to the woman. The man gets to walk away from it and suffer no consequences at all.

You are also ignoring cases of rape.

And are you suggesting that no one should ever have sex unless they are willing to have children? Please.

The kidney scenario is in no way analogous.

I and many other people disagree, and you have not come close to convincing me you are correct.

 

[Holoman]

Excuse me - the risks to the woman. The man gets to walk away from it and suffer no consequences at all.

A woman can walk away as well and give her child for adoption. Of course she's most at risk though having to go through a pregnancy, which is why woman are more particular about choosing a partner to have sex with.

You are also ignoring cases of rape.

Not ignoring, it has nothing to do with the kidney scenario.

And are you suggesting that no one should ever have sex unless they are willing to have children? Please.

What a notion eh, that people take responsibility for their own actions. You'll be shocked to know sex is not an essential part of human existence.

I and many other people disagree, and you have not come close to convincing me you are correct.

I don't have to show anything. It's your argument. You have to convince us that these two scenarios are analogous and so far I haven't seen any good reason that they are.

 

[nChrist]

No it's not. You said:

"What I do with my body parts before or after death is my business alone."
​

Being pregnant certainly counts as doing something with my body parts, doesn't it? If you have to impose arbitrary exceptions to say that I don't have to use my body parts to sustain life in one case, but I do in another case, then you've pretty much admitted that there is no objective truth here. That leaves us with subjective truth, and as such, it is up to each individual.

NO!

 

[Kylie]

A woman can walk away as well and give her child for adoption. Of course she's most at risk though having to go through a pregnancy, which is why woman are more particular about choosing a partner to have sex with.

She can't walk away from pregnancy, and giving the child for adoption is hardly a solution. It will still require her to deal with the pregnancy, which could mean she has to give up her studies, her job, and have you seen how much it costs to give birth in America?

Not ignoring, it has nothing to do with the kidney scenario.

Yes you are ignoring. Your whole argument so far is that the woman knew the consequences of sex and should have taken precautions against getting pregnant. If she is raped then it is entirely out of her control. Or are you suggesting that women should be on the Pill just in case they get raped and don't want to have the rapist's baby?

What a notion eh, that people take responsibility for their own actions. You'll be shocked to know sex is not an essential part of human existence.

Not essential? Huh. Seems to me that me having sex with my husband was an essential part of my daughter's existence, and she is Human, or at least she was the last time I checked.

I don't have to show anything. It's your argument. You have to convince us that these two scenarios are analogous and so far I haven't seen any good reason that they are.

Yeah, the fact that they both involve part of one person's body to sustain life must have completely gone past you...

 

[Kylie]

NO!

Wow, what a well thought out argument, delivered with a great deal of supporting evidence. How can I ever respond to such a devastating rebuttal against my points?

Allow me to try...

YES!

How was that?

 

[nChrist]

Wow, what a well thought out argument, delivered with a great deal of supporting evidence. How can I ever respond to such a devastating rebuttal against my points?

Allow me to try...

YES!

How was that?

I disagree, so we can agree to disagree.

 

[Kylie]

I disagree, so we can agree to disagree.

I'd like to hear some rational as to why you think it's perfectly fine for a person to refuse to have their body used to keep life going, except in the case of pregnancy. How do you justify that exception?

 

[nChrist]

I'd like to hear some rational as to why you think it's perfectly fine for a person to refuse to have their body used to keep life going, except in the case of pregnancy. How do you justify that exception?

I'm through with your silly argument. You have the last word, and I'm sure that it won't make any sense. Kylie, you just won a spot on my ignore list.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"Solient Green"

I'd like to hear some rational as to why you think it's perfectly fine for a person to refuse to have their body used to keep life going, except in the case of pregnancy. How do you justify that exception?

 

[Kylie]

I'm through with your silly argument. You have the last word, and I'm sure that it won't make any sense. Kylie, you just won a spot on my ignore list.

So instead of attempting to actually provide a justification for your position, you hide because you don't like where the conversation is going.

Nice.

Apparently, my "silly argument" is asking you to explain why I am obliged to use my body to continue life in one case but not in another.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yeah, human values. So stop acting as though they exist in reality. There's a reason they are called "arbitrary."



As I have said before, there is no boundary.

And as for when it becomes more like a person than not a person... How are we to make that measure? How do you measure how much personness it has?



But once again, how do you make that measure with a fetus? How do you measure personness?

And you didn't do as I asked. Can you point to a column where the colours to the left are considered orange and those to the right are considered green?

And it seems to me that you are proving my point. The green you chose still has definite orangeness in it. So it is greener than the orange sample you chose, but it is not completely green. It gets more green and less orange as you go to the right. It never passes a point where it stops being orange and suddenly becomes green.

Likewise, a developing embryo never passes a point where it stops being a not-person and starts being a person. It simply becomes more and more person-like until it is a person.

Seriously, you seem to understand this concept when it comes to colours, so if you still don't understand it when it comes to pregnancy, I have to assume from this point that you are just trolling.

If there is no defineable boundary, then when is abortion ok and when is it not?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In this hypothetical thread about organ theft, the kid hypothetically has a different blood type than mine; therefore if Kylie takes my kidney without my consent in order to save the kid’s life, Kylie will have murdered the poor child by transplanting a non-compatible kidney into it.


It is just a stupid hypothetical answer to a stupid immoral hypothetical question that I am truly surprised has gone so far as 600+ posts.

But if hypothetically the blood types are the same your hypothetical argument for that reason is moot.

The answer to the question is simply no, because I am not a slave. It doesn’t matter if blood types are compatible or not. I am not property to be traded or sold at another’s whim. And therefore despite my objections to abortion, I have no right to force another person to do anything....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No it's not. You said:

"What I do with my body parts before or after death is my business alone."
​

Being pregnant certainly counts as doing something with my body parts, doesn't it? If you have to impose arbitrary exceptions to say that I don't have to use my body parts to sustain life in one case, but I do in another case, then you've pretty much admitted that there is no objective truth here. That leaves us with subjective truth, and as such, it is up to each individual.

And it is. I have no right to force you to donate a kidney any more than I have a right to force you to get an abortion or not get one.

We are not slaves.

Personally I am against abortion except in certain circumstances, but that doesn’t give me the right to force someone not to get an abortion. I don’t own them.