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.
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?
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?
Little bit different, than someone taking one of their organs.
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.
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.
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?
I have to admit, you take socialism to the extreme.They are still responsible for Sally's death.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I used to believe this argument too but it is really just a developmental issue and not really a true symbiotic relationship because it eventually grows out of the dependent stage. The age that a human can survive outside the mother keeps dropping and dropping...I don't think it will ever get to zero but what was considered unable to survive without the mother only 20 years ago, isn't true anymore. It isn't a hard and fast number. So how do you determine when a fetus becomes a human if it isn't human from the moment of conception? And really, an infant is a completely dependent on others to exist even if it is no longer the birth mother...so are brain damaged people and often geriatric people...we don't say they cease to be human because they are dependent creatures. And to say a fetus isn't a human is like saying a tadpole isn't a frog...it is just a developmental stage of being a frog...but it is still 100% "frog". We don't start out "non-human" and suddenly become human at birth...we are human from the moment of conception...the DNA does not change so the genetic makeup is the same as it will be the day the body dies (assuming no weird genetic mutating experience like radiation exposure). What does it take to qualify a human as a human? I say it is the combination of genetic makeup and life...which a fetus has both. Until you show me a human who has given birth to anything but a human, ... so say a dog or even a monkey... I say a baby is full human at the point it starts living and can't be anything but a human. The definition of something having "life" is capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death...all things that mean a fetus is a fully living creature.
And how many of the people on dialysis think that it's the best option?
You're talking philosophy. I'm talking legality. Specifically, when does a human fetus have legal rights independent of its mother--when is it a person in the legal sense? Firstly, and obviously, a fetus becomes a person when it's born--whenever that occurs. But if still in utero, it becomes a person when it's naturally viable. (Which is the term I used in my post.) This is the earliest developmental age when it could survive outside the womb without needing high-tech life support. Or in other words, when nature has prepared it to breathe on its own, take oral nutrition, and survive with the usual care given to any other newborn. And if you go back to the old neonatal literature, before the days of ventilators, lung surfactant, and total parenteral nutrition, a preemie born at 24 weeks had just over a 50% chance of survival. I choose this point to avoid the very situation you mentioned. Natural viability is pretty much physiologically fixed. It won't be a moving target, as neonatal intensive care advances. And as I said, the 24 week threshold only applies in utero. Once born, it has full legal rights just like any other baby, no matter how premature, or how much life support it needs. Sure, this is arbitrary, but so what? Many laws make arbitrary distinctions. It's a matter of practical necessity. The real question should be if this is reasonable and fair. I think it is. It's a sensible compromise that balances the mother's ability to decide how her uterus and organ systems will be used, with a fetus's interest in an uninterrupted gestation. And it's not any more arbitrary than claiming that a zygote--a single cell--has rights that supercede those of its mother.
Do you lose vital organs when you are pregnant?
I'll do it for twenty thousand dollars.
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?