My Kidney Challenge

blackribbon · Feb 23, 2016

AV1611VET said:
[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]

Why is a pregnant lady called a pregnant "mother" if it isn't a baby? And considering I have treated two women who have almost died after a so called "simple abortions" in the past 6 months alone, I don't believe it is a "simple procedure" either. Both were "medical abortions" (medication induced) done prior to week 8 of the pregnancy (confirmed by ultra sound). I listened to a doctor telling a 18 year old girl/woman that she might loose her uterus. Not so "nothing" in my opinion.

blackribbon · Feb 23, 2016

I have also seen a 24 week old preemie ... and comforted a who was born at 27 weeks prior to discharge at 32 weeks....A preemie's age is still counted in gestational weeks and not age since birth and yet they are considered "babies". They just have to finish developing on the outside of a mother ... not an ideal situation in any situation. Should these fetuses on the outside of the mother be allowed to be discarded as unwanted "tissue" too?

AV1611VET · Feb 23, 2016

blackribbon said:
Why is a pregnant lady called a pregnant "mother" if it isn't a baby? And considering I have treated two women who have almost died after a so called "simple abortions" in the past 6 months alone, I don't believe it is a "simple procedure" either. Both were "medical abortions" (medication induced) done prior to week 8 of the pregnancy (confirmed by ultra sound). I listened to a doctor telling a 18 year old girl/woman that she might loose her uterus. Not so "nothing" in my opinion.

God bless you!

For the record, I'm pro-life.

jayem · Feb 23, 2016

blackribbon said:
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.

The OP's point is a valid one, and was discussed in an earlier thread touching on fetal personhood. I'm sure you realize that a fetus is physiologically dependent on the mother's body in a way that a newborn baby is not. A newborn really doesn't require its birth mother at all. It can thrive under any caregiver who will provide proper nutrition and nurturing. But a fetus is an obligate symbiote--it can only survive by using the body of one specific host--its mother. And the OP is raising the ethical issues of autonomy and consent. As a medical provider, you also must know that in most situations, an adult person of sound mind is presumed to have autonomy over his/her body and must give consent for how his/her body will be used. Yes, there are exceptions. And the crucial corollary issue is whether becoming pregnant is such an exception. My personal view is a compromise. Until a fetus is naturally viable (24 weeks), the mother's right to consent to the pregnancy takes precedence. After that, the continued gestation of the fetus overrides her autonomy.

AV1611VET · Feb 23, 2016

jayem said:
I'm sure you realize that a fetus is physiologically dependent on the mother's body in a way that a newborn baby is not.

And removing it is taking the life out of it, isn't it?

Kylie · Feb 23, 2016

AionPhanes said:
Yes, because the risks of the procedure and the time lost from work or other activities the living person may want to perform. You would also be imprisoning the person if they didn't want to go to the hospital.

Really? You'd let little Sally die so you don't have to take time off work?

Kylie · Feb 23, 2016

Tree of Life said:
I was hoping for something a bit more thoughtful. A few responses:

You've changed your language here. Person (A) being morally obligated to give their body parts is totally different from Person (B) having the right to take Person (A)'s body parts. Right there the analogy has failed. But I understand what you're trying to say so I won't hold you to this.

Feel free to use the two interchangeably...

A person very well may be morally obligated to give their unused body parts to keep others alive. I haven't seen anyone establish that they are free from this obligation.

Most of the responses have been that people are not required to donate their kidney. It seems most people think that a person is not morally obligated to use their unused body parts to keep others alive. I suspect you don't think so either, or have you gone to donate one of your kidneys to whoever needs it?

Back to your analogy - one of the reasons that it fails is that it violates some of our deepest moral sentiments. Let's suppose that we accept your suggestion - mothers are not obliged to give their body parts to sustain the life of their children. Then this would apply across the board - both to unborn children and children outsidemothers are not obliged to give their body parts to sustain the life of their children of the womb. Yet we think it morally reprehensible that a mother would refuse to use her breasts to feed her baby. We think it reprehensible that a mother would refuse to use her body to carry and shelter her baby from the elements. So if you're going to stick with the bolded principle, you must explain why we think it's morally reprehensible in other cases (post birth cases) - or perhaps why we should also think it's ok for mothers to abandon their infant children.

I know plenty of women who don't breast feed. And there are plenty of cases where the mother puts the child for adoption. Neither of these acts is seen as morally reprehensible.

In any case, even if it was, why would it apply only to mothers? Why is it that "mothers are not obliged to give their body parts to sustain the life of their children" is wrong, but "people are not obliged to give their body parts to sustain the life of other people" is perfectly acceptable?

Kylie · Feb 23, 2016

blackribbon said:
Having two kidneys isn't having "extra parts"...you use both kidney though you can survive with one, it isn't as efficient and you are in trouble if something goes wrong (not as uncommon as you probably think). The donor has life limitation now...he/she is no longer "whole".

And again, why can't this little girl get dialysis to keep her alive? Why is the transplant the only option?

Hooked up to a machine all her life? Would you want to live like that? WHy do you think the demand for kidney donations is so high? because long term dialysis isn't a very practical option.

Kylie · Feb 23, 2016

blackribbon said:
Obviously, you know nothing about transplants....it is major surgery. And the person who qualifies for a transplant isn't at death's door...she can have dialysis treatments like a million other people living with failed kidneys.

And how many of the people on dialysis think that it's the best option?

Kylie · Feb 23, 2016

AV1611VET said:
No.

In your first scenario, you're asking if A should be obligated to sacrifice a body part to keep B alive.

In your second scenario, you're asking if A should be allowed to sacrifice B.

If the only person who can donate a kidney and save Sally's life refuses to do so, they are sacrificing Sally's life, aren't they?

Try again.

Kylie · Feb 23, 2016

katerinah1947 said:
Hi,

Yes, in my case you do have that right.

When do you want it?

LOVE,

As soon as possible.

Please speak to your local physician to arrange a time when you can go and have one of your kidneys removed to be donated to someone on the waiting list. Also, please provide evidence that you have done this.

Kylie · Feb 23, 2016

durangodawood said:
A couple things.
1. the mother typically had some role in bringing the new life into being. No such responsibility binds you or me to Sally.

So? If we don't play a part in creating the person, then we can sit and let them suffer? That's pretty heartless, isn't it?

2. the mother gets to keep all her parts after the birth, typically.

And yet they have to face at least 18 years of living with the child and raising it, as well as loving and caring for that child for the rest of their life. Pregnancy doesn't end at childbirth. It lasts forever.

Kylie · Feb 23, 2016

AV1611VET said:
You're welcome!

I do that from time to time!

If only I could get you to do it more often!

Kylie · Feb 23, 2016

bhsmte said:
I don't follow.

How is a pregnant women, giving up their body parts when they are bearing a child?

If they want an abortion and are denied one, then they are being forced to use their body in a way they do not want. And they have to live with the consequences of that for the rest of their lives.

Kylie · Feb 23, 2016

DiscipleHeLovesToo said:
God has already done all He can do short of forcing people to believe Him; and there are many that do believe and receive - you don't believe He has, and you don't see it either - could these things be related???

If you want to continue this discussion, I'd be more than happy to somewhere else, as it will take this thread off topic.

DiscipleHeLovesToo · Feb 23, 2016

KTS said:
If you want to continue this discussion, I'd be more than happy to somewhere else, as it will take this thread off topic.

that depends on whether both of us will yield to God's word; if either of us won't, then it wouldn't be a good use of our time - i commit to yield to God's word; will you?

DiscipleHeLovesToo · Feb 23, 2016

KTS said:
If you want to continue this discussion, I'd be more than happy to somewhere else, as it will take this thread off topic.

actually, since this is a Christian forum, it will take the topic to the heart of this thread - is there a God who can make kidneys and hearts out of corrupted, dying flesh, or even dust for that matter? is there a God who can provide for single mothers? is there a God who can turn what looks like a curse into a blessing? is there a God who can empower people to do what's impossible for them to do by themselves? isn't that what this thread is really about?

your profile lists you as atheist; is this correct? if so, surely you must realize after being here to post over 2900 times that Christians base their faith on the word of God as found in the Bible; you don't have to believe that the Bible is the word of God (or even that there is a God) to respect the community here and yield to the bible at least as a hypothetical foundation of discussions you participate in as you strive to understand why people would base their lives on words from a book that's thousands of years old. so what about it; do you want to know what the Bible says about sickness and healing? wouldn't the best thing for Sally be for her to receive healing from God directly?

bhsmte · Feb 23, 2016

KTS said:
If they want an abortion and are denied one, then they are being forced to use their body in a way they do not want. And they have to live with the consequences of that for the rest of their lives.

Little bit different, than someone taking one of their organs.

AV1611VET · Feb 23, 2016

KTS said:
If the only person who can donate a kidney and save Sally's life refuses to do so, they are sacrificing Sally's life, aren't they?

What are you?

An advocate for duty to rescue laws or something?

I don't think even your Antichrist Lovers Union would support you on this.

mmksparbud · Feb 23, 2016

KTS said:
And how many of the people on dialysis think that it's the best option?

100%----20 years of being a dialysis tech--I heard many who would say they would rather die than go on dialysis---100% of them went on it. It depends on the options---death or dialysis is often the only option. Due to other medical issues such as age, heart conditions and so on that make a transplant impossible. Plus--a transplant can take a very long time to get in order to get the right matches, sometimes years, and in the meantime they have to go on dialysis. There are 2 different kinds of dialysis, one is the blood method where you go on a machine that cleans the blood, the other is through the peritoneum, a fluid is used in the abdominal cavity that does the job, that involves going on a machine during the night or can be done manually several times a day. (The simple explanation). Some have chosen to come off dialysis and die due to impending death from something else (like cancer) some find it too much and choose to just eat everything they shouldn't and cause a heart attack (very easily done, every patient knows what to do) or just choose to not come in for their treatments.
A transplant is not a guarantee, even if it does work, that it will continue to function for the rest of your life (we all do eventually die sometime)--I've seen them fail after a few days, even after 20 years. Many would rather go on dialysis rather than have anyone give them a kidney. I personally would never accept one from any live donor, only a cadaver donor. And with all my medical issues now--not even that. I may go on the peritoneal dialysis, but doubt even that---for me--I'm in pain 24/7--have no wish to prolong my life.

My Kidney Challenge

Not a newbie

Not a newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Naturalist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency