My Kidney Challenge

[Tree of Life]

This whole issue is something of a smoke screen anyway. When women are considering an abortion it's not because they cannot bare the thought of letting a fetus use their body for 9 months. It's because they cannot bare the thought of having a child for the rest of their lives.

 

[AionPhanes]

How can you compare a few days of lost work with a lost lifetime, a PERMANENT loss of a father or mother, son or daughter, etc?

Morally it might be wrong to refuse. If a person is alive they should have certain rights over their body though. You can't imprison someone and then force them to go through a risky medical procedure (one they could literally die from) in an attempt to help another person. We can't outlaw every instance of possible immorality.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This whole issue is something of a smoke screen anyway. When women are considering an abortion it's not because they cannot bare the thought of letting a fetus use their body for 9 months. It's because they cannot bare the thought of having a child for the rest of their lives.

Actually, for those such as myself that have to stop taking medicine that greatly improves our quality of life should we become pregnant (least we harm the unborn by taking it), the 9 months thing is more of a concern than the time after.

 

[AV1611VET]

I may be morally culpable for not saving a life when it is in my power to do so, but that is still not the same thing as actively taking a life.

A saline abortion burns the baby, then it is passed through the birth canal and removed.

Ezekiel 20:26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.

 

[Tree of Life]

Actually, for those such as myself that have to stop taking medicine that greatly improves our quality of life should we become pregnant (least we harm the unborn by taking it), the 9 months thing is more of a concern than the time after.

Perhaps for women who want babies. But women who don't want babies are probably mainly concerned about what happens after the child is born.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Perhaps for women who want babies. But women who don't want babies are probably mainly concerned about what happens after the child is born.

The concern is for the whole thing, really. Giving birth in a hospital is very expensive, but trying to do it without some professional present is ill advised to say the least.

Personally, I don't like the idea of people that don't want kids raising them.

Also, my previous post's scenario would apply to people that were considering giving up their child for adoption rather than having an abortion.

 

[Tree of Life]

The concern is for the whole thing, really. Giving birth in a hospital is very expensive, but trying to do it without some professional present is ill advised to say the least.

Nah. We've got three kids and have never given birth in a hospital. Midwifery is much preferred and cheaper!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nah. We've got three kids and have never given birth in a hospital. Midwifery is much preferred and cheaper!

A midwife is a professional, and while they are cheaper, the cost is still noteworthy.

 

[Tree of Life]

A midwife is a professional, and while they are cheaper, the cost is still noteworthy.

It can be roughly equivalent to the cost of an abortion. Our midwife charges $3000 for her services and she also barters. We trade lots of stuff to bring the cost down. This next time around we'll only pay $600 out of pocket.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It can be roughly equivalent to the cost of an abortion. Our midwife charges $3000 for her services and she also barters. We trade lots of stuff to bring the cost down. This next time around we'll only pay $600 out of pocket.

Actually, the average cost of an abortion is under $600 in the United States (assuming you use that currency), so if someone pays $3000 for one, they are majorly overpaying. And that's the entire cost, I don't think any insurance companies cover that procedure in that country.

 

[~Anastasia~]

A few hundred dollars difference - or even a couple thousand - as an argument on whether or not to end someone's life?

Again, a bad road to travel down that leads all kinds of nasty places. Grandma's care is costing too much - the only way we will ever afford a new car is to euthanize her.

 

[blackribbon]

On the premise that you don't need both kidneys to live, you don't need both arms either....so if a person needs your less dominant arm...or thumb off your less dominant hand....are we obligated to donate it for transplant too? I don't think most people are understanding the importance of having working kidneys and God gave us two for a reason, they are not "spare parts". What about one eye? .... or even one lung (people do survive on a single lung)?

 

[jayem]

On the premise that you don't need both kidneys to live, you don't need both arms either....so if a person needs your less dominant arm...or thumb off your less dominant hand....are we obligated to donate it for transplant too? I don't think most people are understanding the importance of having working kidneys and God gave us two for a reason, they are not "spare parts". What about one eye? .... or even one lung (people do survive on a single lung)?

People absolutely do survive with one lung. And can even run marathons.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/my-cancer-story/nyc-marathon-with-just-one-lung/

Loss of an eye impairs 3 dimensional perception, though with time, the visual processing function of the brain can compensate for that. These people still may be disqualified from some professions, like commercial pilots, and long-haul truck drivers.

The main health issue with loss of a paired organ is what happens if an injury or future illness destroys the one that's left. Then you might need a transplant yourself.

 

[blackribbon]

People absolutely do survive with one lung. And can even run marathons.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/my-cancer-story/nyc-marathon-with-just-one-lung/

Loss of an eye impairs 3 dimensional perception, though with time, the visual processing function of the brain can compensate for that. These people still may be disqualified from some professions, like commercial pilots, and long-haul truck drivers.

The main health issue with loss of a paired organ is what happens if an injury or future illness destroys the one that's left. Then you might need a transplant yourself.

Both kidneys function in a person with two kidneys....one isn't a "spare" just like the eyes. They both function as a set to keep the body healthy. Yes, you can live without one but like with the eyes, it can change the dynamics of the person's life. A living donation of an organ needs to be a gift of the heart because the donor makes sacrifices after the donation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Both kidneys function in a person with two kidneys....one isn't a "spare" just like the eyes. They both function as a set to keep the body healthy. Yes, you can live without one but like with the eyes, it can change the dynamics of the person's life. A living donation of an organ needs to be a gift of the heart because the donor makes sacrifices after the donation.

I think the OP realizes this.

But he's wondering why one act is considered CHARITY and the other (abortion) is considered MURDER.

 

[blackribbon]

I think the OP realizes this.

But he's wondering why one act is considered CHARITY and the other (abortion) is considered MURDER.

Because abortion doesn't require a person to lose a part of themselves in the process ... pregnancy is a temporary state and is completely "curable" on the delivery date. There is no "donation" of anything...everything the baby has is grown from the BABY'S DNA which is not an exact match of the mothers but rather is independent and unique. The baby and mother may not even have the same blood type and yet it is still a compatible state. A mother simply cares for the baby by nourishing and provides it a safe place to grow during the few months of pregnancy, just like they do after the baby is born. To refuse to provide a safe shelter and proper nutrition (or act of aggression like tearing off a limb) AFTER a child is born is considered murder, so why isn't it the same when the baby is at its most delicate and immature state of life and growth. The comparison really shouldn't be whether or not an innocent party is required to give up a body part but rather the comparison should be to the mother/father who leaves their toddler home alone and something terrible happens to them....like the house catches on fire while they sleep in the crib and mom ran to the store for just a few minutes....or the woman who burns her baby with scalding water because he/she won't stop crying. Why is it okay to not care for a living baby or even actively harm a living baby when it is still in the early stages of its growth and can't live much more independently than a baby in a crib when we would prosecute them for causing harm when they are old enough to simply breath independently from the mother.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is it okay to not care for a living baby or even actively harm a living baby when it is still in the early stages of its growth and can't live much more independently than a baby in a crib when we would prosecute them for causing harm when they are old enough to simply breath independently from the mother.

[devils advocate mode] Why are you calling it a "baby," when the proper term is "fetus"? Calling it a "baby" makes it look like you're using semantics to accuse the carrier of a crime. [/devils advocate mode]

 

[~Anastasia~]

(Stepping out of this conversation - I may miss replying to quotes. Out of town at a spiritual retreat and this is not something I can incorporate. Forgive me ... )

 

[blackribbon]

[devils advocate mode] Why are you calling it a "baby," when the proper term is "fetus"? Calling it a "baby" makes it look like you're using semantics to accuse the carrier of a crime. [/devils advocate mode]

A fetus is just the stage of development of a human child (or any mammal at that). To call a 6 month old an "infant" or a "baby" doesn't mean that it isn't also a "child". I am a nurse and I care for both the mother and the unborn child when I have a pregnant patient. All decisions are based on the fact we have TWO patients during that developmental period that both need to be cared for. I think you are the one using semantics. A fetus IS a baby. It is also a human (assuming the mother is a human) the same way a teenager or a "geriatric" is a human.

 

[AV1611VET]

A fetus is just the stage of development of a human child (or any mammal at that). To call a 6 month old an "infant" or a "baby" doesn't mean that it isn't also a "child". I am a nurse and I care for both the mother and the unborn child when I have a pregnant patient. All decisions are based on the fact we have TWO patients during that developmental period that both need to be cared for. I think you are the one using semantics. A fetus IS a baby. It is also a human (assuming the mother is a human) the same way a teenager or a "geriatric" is a human.

[devils advocate mode] Oh, now, c'mon! Everyone knows that a fetus is just tissue, and that an abortion is a simple procedure to remove unwanted tissue from the womb. It is nothing more than a glorified D&C. And the fact that you have two patients is nothing more than a ploy to get more money, since you're treating two patients, not one. You need to get in the groove here. It's the 21st century now and science is going to leave you behind. [/devils advocate mode]