Should people be forced to give of their bodily resources if it saves lives?

[Hornburger]

The lawyer you know sucks.

Do you think a critically ill patient should wait two weeks before getting necessary blood? Do you think the words "necessary" and "wait two weeks" are compatible?

Alright, I see your point, I guess there isn't a way to see if someone was guilty in a matter of like a day or so. I was merely throwing the idea around.

 

[Iriemon]

If a person can safely give of their bodily resources and this would result in the saving of a life (Such as giving blood or donate a kidney to somebody dying from kidney failure), should they then be forced to give these bodily resources, even against their will?

Absolutely not.

 

[Kandahar]

No. Neither adult is being punshed. If you think they're being punished can you identify them and explain how exactly they're being punished

The woman is being punished by being forced to do exactly what you voted against in the poll: Giving her bodily resources to save a life. Both parents are being punished because you want to prevent them from opting out of the financial costs and time costs associated with raising a child (or at least delivering it).

and what they're being punished for?

I don't know, that's what I'm trying to find out from you guys. The only answer I can come up with is that you want to punish them for having sex, because I can't for the life of me see any other distinction.

If this is truly about a right to life, then why did you frame the distinction between mandatory organ donation and mandatory childbirth as one of someone being "at fault" or "screwing up" in one case, but not the other? Is not the organ recipient alive? And by this logic, does not the organ recipient also have a right to life and therefore a right to enslave someone else?

 

[Hornburger]

The woman is being punished by being forced to do exactly what you voted against in the poll: Giving her bodily resources to save a life. Both parents are being punished because of the financial costs and time costs associated with raising a child (or at least delivering it).

They don't have to raise it, put it up for adoption. As for delivery costs, well then we can try fixing that by reforming tort law and putting caps on the amount juries can award in deciding medical malpractice suits.

I don't know, that's what I'm trying to find out from you guys. The only answer I can come up with is that you want to punish them for having sex, because I can't for the life of me see any other distinction.

If this is truly about a right to life, then why did you frame the distinction between mandatory organ donation and mandatory childbirth as one of someone being "at fault" or "screwing up" in one case, but not the other? Is not the organ recipient alive? And by this logic, does not the organ recipient also have a right to life and therefore a right to enslave someone else?

Because in one instance it is the act of murder and the other is the act of negligence. There is a difference.

A person who donates organs may need it to live later in life. If the doctors are taking an organ from a dead person, that dead person may have not wanted his or her body disected on religious grounds, so if you do that you are violating his or her rights, even if the person is dead.

As for donating blood, an innocent person shouldn't be forced to help someone else out if they don't want to take out the time out of their lives to do so. But with pregnancy, there is a 97-99.9 success rating when protective measures are used, and that number is even higher if people use condoms. And even if such measures do fail, the woman may not get pregnant. In the cases where protection is used and the woman gets pregnant, those cases are very rare.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The woman is being punished by being forced to do exactly what you voted against in the poll: Giving her bodily resources to save a life. Both parents are being punished because you want to prevent them from opting out of the financial costs and time costs associated with raising a child (or at least delivering it).

No, she's not being punished. She made a choice to risk getting knocked up, she got knocked up. Now she's being required to bear the responsibility of her choice, since the alternative is the deliberate murder of another human being.

How is that punishment? Is it our fault she's stupid?

I don't know, that's what I'm trying to find out from you guys. The only answer I can come up with is that you want to punish them for having sex, because I can't for the life of me see any other distinction.

If this is truly about a right to life, then why did you frame the distinction between mandatory organ donation and mandatory childbirth as one of someone being "at fault" or "screwing up" in one case, but not the other? Is not the organ recipient alive? And by this logic, does not the organ recipient also have a right to life and therefore a right to enslave someone else?

Because it's not "mandatory childbirth". The woman had the option of saying
"no". We're not punishing anyone for having sex, we're preventing someone from dying via deliberate murder.

The situation of a person dying because another person declines to have his own body hacked up is a different matter. The intended forced donor didn't choose for that other person's kidney's to fail. A pregnant woman choose to engage in activity that may get her knocked up.

 

[Kelzie]

No, she's not being punished. She made a choice to risk getting knocked up, she got knocked up. Now she's being required to bear the responsibility of her choice, since the alternative is the deliberate murder of another human being.

How is that punishment? Is it our fault she's stupid?




Because it's not "mandatory childbirth". The woman had the option of saying
"no". We're not punishing anyone for having sex, we're preventing someone from dying via deliberate murder.

The situation of a person dying because another person declines to have his own body hacked up is a different matter. The intended forced donor didn't choose for that other person's kidney's to fail. A pregnant woman choose to engage in activity that may get her knocked up.

You're saying the same thing. A women is forced to give up her bodily functions because of a decision she made. That is okay. Another person cannot be forced to give up their bodily functions though. So essentialy, the only difference is the decision that the women made. If she hadn't made that decision, she would not be forced to give up her bodily functions, correct? Forcing something on another because of a choice they made, when a person that has not made that choice is not getting it forced on them is a punishment. If it was truely about saving a life, it wouldn't matter what choice was made. Blood would be taken, a kidney would be harvested, etc.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You're saying the same thing. A women is forced to give up her bodily functions because of a decision she made. That is okay. Another person cannot be forced to give up their bodily functions though. So essentialy, the only difference is the decision that the women made. If she hadn't made that decision, she would not be forced to give up her bodily functions, correct? Forcing something on another because of a choice they made, when a person that has not made that choice is not getting it forced on them is a punishment. If it was truely about saving a life, it wouldn't matter what choice was made. Blood would be taken, a kidney would be harvested, etc.

A woman is forced to comply with the consequences of a decision she made.

Another person is supposedly being forced to comply with the consequences of a decision someone else made.

No one is forcing anything on the woman. She volunteered. She wouldn't be in that position if she hadn't assumed another position earlier.

It's the difference between deliberate murder for the sake of personal convenience versus treating a totally independent and innocent third party as a spare parts car to be stripped as needed for someone else's convenience.

And it's not about "saving life". It's about preventing murder. I can see a clear difference betwee those two situations.

The state has no moral obligation to "save life". The state's only function is the prevention of violence being acted upon one person by another.

 

[Kelzie]

A woman is forced to comply with the consequences of a decision she made.

Another person is supposedly being forced to comply with the consequences of a decision someone else made.

No one is forcing anything on the woman. She volunteered. She wouldn't be in that position if she hadn't assumed another position earlier.

It's the difference between deliberate murder for the sake of personal convenience versus treating a totally independent and innocent third party as a spare parts car to be stripped as needed for someone else's convenience.

And it's not about "saving life". It's about preventing murder. I can see a clear difference betwee those two situations.

The state has no moral obligation to "save life". The state's only function is the prevention of violence being acted upon one person by another.

Well, fine. The fetus will be taken out and if it can live on it's own, more power to it. But if it requires some part of the women's bodily functions to live and she denies it, that is not murder. That is the same situation as you not giving blood so that another person can live.

 

[debate_junkie]

A woman is forced to comply with the consequences of a decision she made.

Another person is supposedly being forced to comply with the consequences of a decision someone else made.

No one is forcing anything on the woman. She volunteered. She wouldn't be in that position if she hadn't assumed another position earlier.

It's the difference between deliberate murder for the sake of personal convenience versus treating a totally independent and innocent third party as a spare parts car to be stripped as needed for someone else's convenience.

And it's not about "saving life". It's about preventing murder. I can see a clear difference betwee those two situations.

The state has no moral obligation to "save life". The state's only function is the prevention of violence being acted upon one person by another.

And no one forces an alcoholic to pick up a drink, and yet alcoholics OFTEN are on donor lists to receive new livers. With your logic, you make it sound like if someone decides to do something "wrong" they don't deserve a second chance. Hmmm tell that to the young man of 27, who was an alcoholic from the age of 12 who received my father in law's liver, and sent both my husband and myself, and my mother in law a written PLEDGE to never touch an alcoholic drink again.

 

[Hornburger]

Well, fine. The fetus will be taken out and if it can live on it's own, more power to it. But if it requires some part of the women's bodily functions to live and she denies it, that is not murder. That is the same situation as you not giving blood so that another person can live.

Nope, then she wouldn't have to, if other people shouldn't be forced to give up organs and blood everything, that would apply to the mother too. But in almost all cases, the mother would want to save the child, especially when little or no harm will come to the mother. And if harm is to come to the mother...then the mother should be allowed to save her own life...so yeah.

And no one forces an alcoholic to pick up a drink, and yet alcoholics OFTEN are on donor lists to receive new livers. With your logic, you make it sound like if someone decides to do something "wrong" they don't deserve a second chance. Hmmm tell that to the young man of 27, who was an alcoholic from the age of 12 who received my father in law's liver, and sent both my husband and myself, and my mother in law a written PLEDGE to never touch an alcoholic drink again.

If you are an alcoholic, you are killing yourself. And that is fine if you want to do that.

But with abortion, you are killing someone ELSE. An innocent someone else. That is a huge difference. We can't just let people slip by the law in abortion when it is murder.

 

[Kandahar]

Nope, then she wouldn't have to, if other people shouldn't be forced to give up organs and blood everything, that would apply to the mother too. But in almost all cases, the mother would want to save the child, especially when little or no harm will come to the mother.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Your estimation of what the mother wants in almost all cases notwithstanding, there are obviously a lot of potential mothers who disagree with you since they have abortions. I've never seen the anti-abortion argument framed as "Abortion should be illegal because everyone who has an abortion doesn't really want one." That is a new one, and you at least get a point for creativity.

I'm yet to see you folks draw any meaningful distinction between mandatory childbirth and mandatory organ donation.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

And no one forces an alcoholic to pick up a drink, and yet alcoholics OFTEN are on donor lists to receive new livers. With your logic, you make it sound like if someone decides to do something "wrong" they don't deserve a second chance. Hmmm tell that to the young man of 27, who was an alcoholic from the age of 12 who received my father in law's liver, and sent both my husband and myself, and my mother in law a written PLEDGE to never touch an alcoholic drink again.

Wow. A written pledge even. I've never heard of anyone violating a written pledge before, so it must be good.

The fool made a choice to kill his liver. As far as I'm concerned, he should have been in line behind anyone who suffered from some involuntarily derived liver disease.

Personally, I plan on being a one-horse shay and not leaving any useful parts behind, except maybe a couple of testicles.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Well, fine. The fetus will be taken out and if it can live on it's own, more power to it. But if it requires some part of the women's bodily functions to live and she denies it, that is not murder. That is the same situation as you not giving blood so that another person can live.

Sounds good. So a woman that gave birth who then refuses to breast feed her child, to give it water, to do anything for it once it's home is simply testing the viability theory out and not guilty of any crime.

 

[Kelzie]

Sounds good. So a woman that gave birth who then refuses to breast feed her child, to give it water, to do anything for it once it's home is simply testing the viability theory out and not guilty of any crime.

None of those things are necessary bodily resources.

 

[Hornburger]

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Your estimation of what the mother wants in almost all cases notwithstanding, there are obviously a lot of potential mothers who disagree with you since they have abortions. I've never seen the anti-abortion argument framed as "Abortion should be illegal because everyone who has an abortion doesn't really want one." That is a new one, and you at least get a point for creativity.

Well, if the child is already born...everyone would agree the child is living...why wouldn't the mother want to help the child, if no harm will come to her? I'm not saying that she would have to keep the child, but I would think anybody with half a heart would want to give her bodily resources (provided that the effect would not be detrimental to the mother) to the baby...you don't agree?

But either way, this has little to do with my answer to Kelzie's question...which was no, it wouldn't be required...so the above does not really make a difference.

I'm yet to see you folks draw any meaningful distinction between mandatory childbirth and mandatory organ donation.

I don't see what you don't understand. As Scarecrow said, the government's job is not to make people obligatory to save others, but it is their job to try and prevent those murders from happening. In this context, the government must try and prevent people from murdering babies; it is the fault of the parents for not using preventative measures (chances of failure are extremely rare), and as a result pregnancy occurs, and the life must be protected because of the fault of the parent...but in the blood donor scenario it is no one's fault (besides perhaps the victim and/or person who caused the injury) that the person is in desperate need of blood.

People are required to not kill others, but it is not against the law to let them die. It's a matter of who's fault it was...

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

None of those things are necessary bodily resources.

Sorry, you're the one that started the thread against cow juice. The natural and necessary bodily resource for a new-born infant is his mother's milk. Also, the effort needed to water, feed, and clean the infant are also bodily resources needed by the baby. Any mother with an infant in her care is subject to punishment under law for failing to provide these necessities.

A human child is not a "viable" unit for quite some time after birth. Hence the "viability" argument is invalid.

 

[Kelzie]

Sorry, you're the one that started the thread against cow juice. The natural and necessary bodily resource for a new-born infant is his mother's milk. Also, the effort needed to water, feed, and clean the infant are also bodily resources needed by the baby. Any mother with an infant in her care is subject to punishment under law for failing to provide these necessities.

A human child is not a "viable" unit for quite some time after birth. Hence the "viability" argument is invalid.

We here in the 21st century have this nifty little invention I like to call formula. Works like a charm for people without breast milk. None of those were bodily resources required for life.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

We here in the 21st century have this nifty little invention I like to call formula. Works like a charm for people without breast milk. None of those were bodily resources required for life.

You're against cow juice but you'd feed a baby that crap? And can the baby fill the bottle and warm that junk up by herself, or is the mother's bodily resources tentatively identified as arms, hands, legs, feet, hell throw in the whole torso, and the brain also required for the maintenance of the baby?

 

[Kelzie]

You're against cow juice but you'd feed a baby that crap? And can the baby fill the bottle and warm that junk up by herself, or is the mother's bodily resources tentatively identified as arms, hands, legs, feet, hell throw in the whole torso, and the brain also required for the maintenance of the baby?

I certainly believe breast milk is superior, but without is you don't have much of a choice. And you can't feed babies cow milk.

NONE of those is a bodily resource. Come on now. Even though I haven't agreed with your argument, at least up till now you've at least gotten the definitions right.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I certainly believe breast milk is superior, but without is you don't have much of a choice. And you can't feed babies cow milk.

NONE of those is a bodily resource. Come on now. Even though I haven't agreed with your argument, at least up till now you've at least gotten the definitions right.

Yes, arms and legs are body parts, and they're absolutely essential for the baby's well being, the care-takers arms and legs, that is. No mother should leave home without them.

And yes, breast milk is indeed a bodily resource, even if modern technology has created less than admirable substitutes. A kid ain't "viable" until it can feed itself. Thus it requires other bodies to do the dirty work. And for human animals that means about ten years, minimum.

 

[debate_junkie]

Nope, then she wouldn't have to, if other people shouldn't be forced to give up organs and blood everything, that would apply to the mother too. But in almost all cases, the mother would want to save the child, especially when little or no harm will come to the mother. And if harm is to come to the mother...then the mother should be allowed to save her own life...so yeah.


If you are an alcoholic, you are killing yourself. And that is fine if you want to do that.

But with abortion, you are killing someone ELSE. An innocent someone else. That is a huge difference. We can't just let people slip by the law in abortion when it is murder.

Hmmmm so you'll condone suicide, but not abortion? LMAO OMG I don't know how this got from organ/tissue/blood donation, to abortion, but dude, you just said a mouthful right there

 

[Hornburger]

Hmmmm so you'll condone suicide, but not abortion? LMAO OMG I don't know how this got from organ/tissue/blood donation, to abortion, but dude, you just said a mouthful right there

Yes, I do. Suicide should be completely legal. I am all for letting people kill themselves if they so choose. Don't make someone live in pain, torture, and agony if they don't want to. As for abortion though, you are killing someone who did not ask to die. People shouldn't be allowed to murder OTHERS, but they SHOULD be allowed to murder themselves. The primary purpose of the government is to secure the safety of its citizens. If people want to refuse that safety and kill themselves...then be my guest.

 

[debate_junkie]

Yes, I do. Suicide should be completely legal. I am all for letting people kill themselves if they so choose. Don't make someone live in pain, torture, and agony if they don't want to. As for abortion though, you are killing someone who did not ask to die. People shouldn't be allowed to murder OTHERS, but they SHOULD be allowed to murder themselves. The primary purpose of the government is to secure the safety of its citizens. If people want to refuse that safety and kill themselves...then be my guest.

Well if the government's primary purpose is to secure the safety of it's citizens, then suicide COULDN'T be legal. Government would be derelict in it's duties to allow suicide, using your logic. Can they stop suicide, even against the law? Nope, because government cannot be in every home, every car, every garage, on every bridge, etc. to make sure no one is doing such.

Government can pass laws to make abortion illegal. Could it stop them... only after the fact.. once the act is committed, but they cannot stop it from happening, correct? No, they can't. Why is that? Because again, government cannot be in every doctor's office or hospital at every moment of any given day.

So you see.. the long and short of it is this. When a person is committed to doing something, regardless of it being suicide or abortion, they WILL find a way to do it. My question for you, how do you propose government, who's primary duty is to secure the safety of it's citizenry, uphold it's primary duty when it comes to abortion and suicide?

 

[Hornburger]

Well if the government's primary purpose is to secure the safety of it's citizens, then suicide COULDN'T be legal. Government would be derelict in it's duties to allow suicide, using your logic. Can they stop suicide, even against the law? Nope, because government cannot be in every home, every car, every garage, on every bridge, etc. to make sure no one is doing such.

Government can pass laws to make abortion illegal. Could it stop them... only after the fact.. once the act is committed, but they cannot stop it from happening, correct? No, they can't. Why is that? Because again, government cannot be in every doctor's office or hospital at every moment of any given day.

So you see.. the long and short of it is this. When a person is committed to doing something, regardless of it being suicide or abortion, they WILL find a way to do it. My question for you, how do you propose government, who's primary duty is to secure the safety of it's citizenry, uphold it's primary duty when it comes to abortion and suicide?

But when it comes to suicide, the citizen him or herself does not want the right to life. They are throwing away that right. If they want to throw it away, it should be allowed. But they can't make someone else lose their life, because that person never chose to die. So I think suicide should become legal.

And as for how you can prevent abortion...I think laws banning abortion would in fact prevent them. People in general tend to follow the law and be afraid of punishment and consequences. If people knew that if they had an abortion they would be punished, not only would there be a much better chance of people not getting one, there would also be a better chance that people who have been punished won't get another one aborted.

If laws didn't work we wouldn't have them...although the government can't be at the murder scene to stop the murder, it prosecutes the murderer so it gives incentive to other citizens not to murder (just one of the reasons to put murderers in jail, mind you). But the fact is laws DO work, preventing people from doing a crime that they may feel compelled to do if there was no law banning it. Banning abortion WOULD reduce the huge number of abortions taking place in this country.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Yes, I do. Suicide should be completely legal. I am all for letting people kill themselves if they so choose. Don't make someone live in pain, torture, and agony if they don't want to. As for abortion though, you are killing someone who did not ask to die. People shouldn't be allowed to murder OTHERS, but they SHOULD be allowed to murder themselves. The primary purpose of the government is to secure the safety of its citizens. If people want to refuse that safety and kill themselves...then be my guest.

Suicide is a crime mostly becuase the state needs a reason to hold a potential suicide so he can receive treatment for what ails him. Most suicides are due more to depression than terminal illnesses or chronic pain, and that's usually treatable.

But you're right that if someone wants to end a miserable life of pain or take a pass on the last six months of ALS, why not let them go? Or, more precisely, why punish those who helped ease them on their way?

But this is clearly a dangerous area and a lot of caution has to be used. Wouldn't want someone claiming all the mental defective want suicide, right?