My Kidney Challenge

[atrib]

So tell us what your objective standard would be to decide that it is appropriate for the state to force a person to "donate" an organ? I have asked for it three times already.

And I responded, way back, that I have trouble thinking of any plausible scenarios.
I managed to come up with one, hugely implausible, scenario.

II you are unable to think of a single hypothetical scenario to support your position that it may sometimes be appropriate for the state to take a person's organs by force, I think it is fair to say that you cannot provide an objective standard to serve as a test to decide when such forced "donations" should be allowed. And that your inability to think up a scenario is related to the fact that you find the idea abhorrent. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

But all the baby killers keep changing the subject, changing the meanings of words, changing what I said to the exact opposite and quizzing me on why I said that.

Interesting that you brought that up. You can't conceive of a single scenario where it is appropriate for a state to take a person's organs by force, but you appear to have no problem with the state mandating that a pregnant woman be forced to let the fetus use her organs for a period of many months against her expressed will.

By the way, nobody is misrepresenting anything here.
This was your initial response to the poll:

TomC:
No.

Because you had nothing to do with her need for a kidney.
Tom

You appear to be saying that under certain circumstances, which are not defined in your post, the state can force a person to donate their organs to another person in need.

This is what you said when you were asked to clarify, just in case I had misunderstood:

So in your mind there may be circumstances where you think it would be appropriate to force someone to donate their kidney to the little girl?

TomC:
Correct.
It's a theoretical possibility.

This thread is a great illustration of why I don't believe y'all any more than I believe YEC believers or TeaPartiers. Y'all can't stay on a subject, understand English, or use science to inform your moral code.

Tom

You appear to be hesitant to defend your own statements, and resort to calling people names and accusing them of bad behavior to try to cover up your own gaffes and flaws in your logic. Cut out the passive aggressive shit and focus on what people are saying. You will be a better person for it.

 

[TomC]

"Made to" is "forced".

Your ability to create arguments based on your personal definitions of words and terms is quite reminiscent of TeaPartiers and YEC.

And Nazis!

All too true.

But I was trying to remain a little polite.
Tom

II you are unable to think of a single hypothetical scenario to support your position that it may sometimes be appropriate for the state to take a person's organs by force, I think it is fair to say that you cannot provide an objective standard to serve as a test to decide when such forced "donations" should be allowed. And that your inability to think up a scenario is related to the fact that you find the idea abhorrent. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

No.
I tried to use a bit of nuanced thought. Obviously nuances are lost on hardcore ideologues.
Bob poisons Joe, resulting in Joe's catastrophic kidney failure. Bob is the sole possible donor of the kidney Joe needs to survive. Bob refuses to donate the kidney.

Under those circumstances, I've got no problem with the state strapping Bob down and taking the kidney. I'd do it myself if I didn't think that there are more qualified people for the task. Bob caused the dire need Joe has and he's responsible for the outcome of his decision, including organ donation. I'm no fan of capital punishment, being ProLifer, but if we had to kill Bob to get that kidney I'd be OK with it. Morally.
Bob made a choice. Joe wasn't involved in the choice. Joe is now in dire need of something that only Bob can provide. Bob owes Joe a kidney, no matter what.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

"Made to" is "forced".

Your ability to create arguments based on your personal definitions of words and terms is quite reminiscent of TeaPartiers and YEC.

And Nazis!

All too true.

But I was trying to remain a little polite.
Tom

II you are unable to think of a single hypothetical scenario to support your position that it may sometimes be appropriate for the state to take a person's organs by force, I think it is fair to say that you cannot provide an objective standard to serve as a test to decide when such forced "donations" should be allowed. And that your inability to think up a scenario is related to the fact that you find the idea abhorrent. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

No.
I tried to use a bit of nuanced thought. Obviously nuances are lost on hardcore ideologues.
Bob poisons Joe, resulting in Joe's catastrophic kidney failure. Bob is the sole possible donor of the kidney Joe needs to survive. Bob refuses to donate the kidney.

Under those circumstances, I've got no problem with the state strapping Bob down and taking the kidney. I'd do it myself if I didn't think that there are more qualified people for the task. Bob caused the dire need Joe has and he's responsible for the outcome of his decision, including organ donation. I'm no fan of capital punishment, being ProLifer, but if we had to kill Bob to get that kidney I'd be OK with it. Morally.
Bob made a choice. Joe wasn't involved in the choice. Joe is now in dire need of something that only Bob can provide. Bob owes Joe a kidney, no matter what.
Tom

So Mr Bob Moneybags, poisoned by Joe Bartender with alcohol forcing the failure of Bob's kidneys agues that because Joe should reasonably be able to tell that when one of his patrons looks sickly that he should not serve them alcohol.

The judge likes Mr Moneybags' argument that Joe, the bartender in a different state where Bob was just happening to vacation at the time, must give him the kidney under the same precedent as another Joe and Bob...

So Joe gets strapped to the table and forced to donate one of his kidneys to Bob Moneybags.

Congrats, you just argued the line that Bob Moneybags uses to steal Joe's kidney.

Because while you and I both know that Mr Moneybags was in that bar and knew Joe was a match when he ordered that drink, Mr Moneybags managed to not admit as much in court.

And after all, Joe did poison Bob...

Let's be clear, we live in a world where folks will argue with a straight face that "it's settled law" doesn't at all imply that "so I'm not about to unsettle it", and where people who raped a child are then given access to the child of that rape at the same age they raped her mother.

 

[TomC]

At the risk of derailing this thread from the unstated topic to the topic mentioned in the OP,

Here in the USA, organ donation is a social issue that is handled very badly. We could do a lot better.

I think the big problem is that the ideal candidates for organ donation don't think about it. They're the vigorous, healthy, young people who don't think much about mortality issues. They don't consider signing up as an organ donor. It just doesn't occur to them.

So when the statistically inevitable happens, and they become an ideal donor, the medical establishment has to wait. Find out who has power of attorney. Ask them if organ donation is OK. Wait for an answer*. Get a hospital lawyer to sign off on everything.

By then, the organs are too long gone to be transplants.

Here's my suggestion.
Everyone who signs up as an organ donor gets a little tax break. Say, $50, every year that they remain an official organ donor.

Then nobody has to wait around when Brad, who doesn't like wearing motorcycle helmets, hits his head and dies in hospital an hour later.

Works for me.
Tom



* Keep in mind, you're asking a grieving family if it's okay to cut up their loved one for someone else's benefit.

 

[Elixir]

Science informs me that microscopic blobs of protoplasm lack ALL the observable physical and behavioral attributes of a person above

Where, precisely, does science inform you of the attributes of "person"?

Tom

The hypothesis that a small group of cells is a person, is falsified by failure to turn up any supporting evidence above the molecular level.
Like the purple unicorn in my garage. No evidence, meaning it can be provisionally ruled out. Sure, it might exist, but that isn't going to keep me from using my garage as I see fit.

You never studied science, apparently. It is a methodology, and you owe virtually all your food, shelter, clothing and transportation to its efficacy.
Worth a glance some time.

 

[TomC]

So Mr Bob Moneybags, poisoned by Joe Bartender with alcohol forcing the failure of Bob's kidneys

Let's stop right there with your nonsensical emotional bullshit.

Joe didn't "force" Bob Moneybags to buy all that beer. Giving Bob an option isn't forcing him to do anything.

I already mentioned the distinction between "the culture of entitlement and victimhood" and "the culture of restraint and personal responsibility". You're still going on about how rich people are victims of their ability to buy alcohol.

Seriously. You are blaming the bartender! For Mr Moneybags bad decisions! Can you not see that!?
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

At the risk of derailing this thread from the unstated topic to the topic mentioned in the OP,

Here in the USA, organ donation is a social issue that is handled very badly. We could do a lot better.

I think the big problem is that the ideal candidates for organ donation don't think about it. They're the vigorous, healthy, young people who don't think much about mortality issues. They don't consider signing up as an organ donor. It just doesn't occur to them.

So when the statistically inevitable happens, and they become an ideal donor, the medical establishment has to wait. Find out who has power of attorney. Ask them if organ donation is OK. Wait for an answer*. Get a hospital lawyer to sign off on everything.

By then, the organs are too long gone to be transplants.

Here's my suggestion.
Everyone who signs up as an organ donor gets a little tax break. Say, $50, every year that they remain an official organ donor.

Then nobody has to wait around when Brad, who doesn't like wearing motorcycle helmets, hits his head and dies in hospital an hour later.

Works for me.
Tom



* Keep in mind, you're asking a grieving family if it's okay to cut up their loved one for someone else's benefit.

Or, declare opt-out rather than opt-in.

Problem solved.

If it really matters to you and you distrust the world that much, again you can always designate your lack of consent or survivors to enforce this directive.

Instead of asking to cut up someone else's lived ones, it becomes a matter of course, wherein the body is delivered to the morgue sans contents of the chest cavity, unless the family takes issue.

 

[Jarhyn]

So Mr Bob Moneybags, poisoned by Joe Bartender with alcohol forcing the failure of Bob's kidneys

Let's stop right there with your nonsensical emotional bullshit.

Joe didn't "force" Bob Moneybags to buy all that beer. Giving Bob an option isn't forcing him to do anything.

I already mentioned the distinction between "the culture of entitlement and victimhood" and "the culture of restraint and personal responsibility". You're still going on about how rich people are victims of their ability to buy alcohol.

Seriously. You are blaming the bartender! For Mr Moneybags bad decisions! Can you not see that!?
Tom

No, I'm going on about how rich people will argue in front of a rich judge that they are victims of their ability to buy alcohol. "I only went in for one, which my doctor said is fine, but look at that he sold me 5 whole beers your honor, cry for me"

We both know this is bad faith. You should at least be honest enough to take two fucking seconds to grok that, that I'm not even defending the behavior.

If you even paid attention you would notice how I compared Moneybags to a guy who rapes little girls.

Then, I'm not the one between us who defended a guy who rapes little girls.

I'm pointing out nonetheless that under your logic, there's going to be a judge ordering Joe to give Moneybags his kidney, because there was a judge who turned over a rape baby while she is a little girl to the guy that raped that baby into a little girl.

 

[TomC]

The hypothesis that a small group of cells is a person, is falsified by failure to turn up any supporting evidence above the molecular level.
Like the purple unicorn in my garage. No evidence, meaning it can be provisionally ruled out. Sure, it might exist, but that isn't going to keep me from using my garage as I see fit.

You never studied science, apparently. It is a methodology, and you owe virtually all your food, shelter, clothing and transportation to its efficacy.
Worth a glance some time.

I'm the one who keeps pointing out that "person" isn't well enough defined to be useful in this conversation.
Over and over.

People like you keep bringing it up, while dismissing the term "human being" as too subjective or something. Give it a rest.
Tom

 

[TomC]

So Mr Bob Moneybags, poisoned by Joe Bartender with alcohol forcing the failure of Bob's kidneys

Let's stop right there with your nonsensical emotional bullshit.

Joe didn't "force" Bob Moneybags to buy all that beer. Giving Bob an option isn't forcing him to do anything.

I already mentioned the distinction between "the culture of entitlement and victimhood" and "the culture of restraint and personal responsibility". You're still going on about how rich people are victims of their ability to buy alcohol.

Seriously. You are blaming the bartender! For Mr Moneybags bad decisions! Can you not see that!?
Tom

No, I'm going on about how rich people will argue in front of a rich judge that they are victims of their ability to buy alcohol. "I only went in for one, which my doctor said is fine, but look at that he sold me 5 whole beers your honor, cry for me"

We both know this is bad faith. You should at least be honest enough to take two fucking seconds to grok that, that I'm not even defending the behavior.

If you even paid attention you would notice how I compared Moneybags to a guy who rapes little girls.

Then, I'm not the one between us who defended a guy who rapes little girls.

I'm pointing out nonetheless that under your logic, there's going to be a judge ordering Joe to give Moneybags his kidney, because there was a judge who turned over a rape baby while she is a little girl to the guy that raped that baby into a little girl.

What the hell are you talking about?

A judge turned over a rape baby, so therefore a bartender is responsible for a rich guy's cirrhosis?

Seriously?

This is the level of arguments to which you have sunk?

I'd say I'm surprised, but I'm not. It's what I've come to expect.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

The hypothesis that a small group of cells is a person, is falsified by failure to turn up any supporting evidence above the molecular level.
Like the purple unicorn in my garage. No evidence, meaning it can be provisionally ruled out. Sure, it might exist, but that isn't going to keep me from using my garage as I see fit.

You never studied science, apparently. It is a methodology, and you owe virtually all your food, shelter, clothing and transportation to its efficacy.
Worth a glance some time.

I'm the one who keeps pointing out that "person" isn't well enough defined to be useful in this conversation.
Over and over.

People like you keep bringing it up, while dismissing the term "human being" as too subjective or something. Give it a rest.
Tom

Short memory, much? You asked me to pick a time of personhood using science. I simply gave you the way to make that determination. Set your criteria, then see if you have a match at a point during or after gestation. If not, no person. If so, maybe or likely a person. I used a small clump of cells and the criteria I would use. But regardless of definitions of personhood whether scientific or colloquial, I’d grant every female (and male) exclusive and complete domain over their bodies. To advocate otherwise is utterly immoral and unethical. I’m not accusing you of that advocacy, just complaining about your insufficient level of condemnation. The straddledance reeks of “both sides” arguments.
Period.

 

[TomC]

Short memory, much? You asked me to pick a time of personhood using science.

Could you post a quote, or a post number?
Because I confident that that didn't happen.

I'm confident that I've consistently pointed out that person is a vague and subjective word. I've pointed out that I avoid it in this discussion for exactly that reason.
Maybe not this thread, there are many threads on the subject. But I am certain that I've never asked you to pick a time of personhood based on science.
This is just you misrepresenting me and building a strawmanning argument.

Again.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

Without a physiological match the point becomes moot. "Sole possible donor" is quite different from "a possible donor".
As long as there is another option that's where I'd start.

It’s not as far-fetched as this claims. If all the other matches refuse to donate then each one becomes the “sole possible donor,” including the one who had something to do with the need.


We know how many people die every year because of a lack of a donor.

Another person is added to the nation's organ transplant waiting list every 10 minutes. Sadly, 8,000 people die each year (on average 22 people each day — almost one person each hour) because the organs they need are not donated in time. 80% of patients on the waiting list are waiting for a kidney.

So any blithe claim that the donor at hand does not consitute the only hope that person has turns out to be rather callous.

In these scenarios - all of them, the match donor does represent the “only possible donor”.

I can think of dozens of scenarios that create a situation where the cause of the need is the only donor available for the need.

• Car accident - cause of car accident is match for fatally damaged liver or spleen of tthe person they hit. The possiblitiy of another donor is too remote to pretend that the person will live
• Coal baron causing working conditions that result in workers needing a lung transplant, and he’s a match. A great number of industrial situations can fit this.
• Dog owner causing bite/attack conditions where a child loses too much skin, and she’s a skin graft match.
• Or someone who starts a fire and again someone needs skin grafts to survive.
• Someone causes a premature birth through trauma, say a car accident, and they are the only availble match for O-neg blood that is also CMV-neg for virus
• Add in all the scenarios where it’s not an organ that is needed but a time commitment of the perp and the list gets even longer.

If one believes that being the cause of the need, even accidentally, is obliged to donate parts of their body or their freedom to save a life, then there are a lot of anti-life situations being allowed.

Let's stop right there with your nonsensical emotional bullshit.

??

Says the “baby killers” guy?

 

[Jarhyn]

So Mr Bob Moneybags, poisoned by Joe Bartender with alcohol forcing the failure of Bob's kidneys

Let's stop right there with your nonsensical emotional bullshit.

Joe didn't "force" Bob Moneybags to buy all that beer. Giving Bob an option isn't forcing him to do anything.

I already mentioned the distinction between "the culture of entitlement and victimhood" and "the culture of restraint and personal responsibility". You're still going on about how rich people are victims of their ability to buy alcohol.

Seriously. You are blaming the bartender! For Mr Moneybags bad decisions! Can you not see that!?
Tom

No, I'm going on about how rich people will argue in front of a rich judge that they are victims of their ability to buy alcohol. "I only went in for one, which my doctor said is fine, but look at that he sold me 5 whole beers your honor, cry for me"

We both know this is bad faith. You should at least be honest enough to take two fucking seconds to grok that, that I'm not even defending the behavior.

If you even paid attention you would notice how I compared Moneybags to a guy who rapes little girls.

Then, I'm not the one between us who defended a guy who rapes little girls.

I'm pointing out nonetheless that under your logic, there's going to be a judge ordering Joe to give Moneybags his kidney, because there was a judge who turned over a rape baby while she is a little girl to the guy that raped that baby into a little girl.

What the hell are you talking about?

A judge turned over a rape baby, so therefore a bartender is responsible for a rich guy's cirrhosis?

Seriously?

This is the level of arguments to which you have sunk?

I'd say I'm surprised, but I'm not. It's what I've come to expect.
Tom

My argument is that tortured justice on tortured logic is a thing. If TomC in his well meaning but stupid declaration is allowed to create a precedent that allows Bob The Poisoner to be strapped down and have a kidney stolen from Joe the Innocent, Bob Moneybags is going to be arguing successfully to get Joe the Bartender strapped down, because this is the fucking world we live in, a world where an equally evil judge for an equally evil person gave custody of his rape baby to said evil person so he could rape her too.

My point is that evil exists and opening a door that justifies the legal theft of organs, even from someone who damages organs is fucked.

And we still haven't gotten into the whole fungibility problem that came up the last time you brought up this stinker of an argument.

 

[Jarhyn]

To wit, the fungibility problem: let us assume that Bob Moneybags is not a match for Joe, but is a match for Peter Kidneystabber's kidney, and Kelly Kidneystabbed is a match for Bob, and Peter is a match for Joe. Can the state make them trade "victims"?

If not, why not?

Because that's when this becomes industrial scale organ theft.

 

[TomC]

It’s no as far-fetched as this claims. If all the other matches refuse to donate then each one becomes the “sole possible donor,” including the one who had something to do with the need.

I know how important it is to you to keep up the organ donor connection to pregnancy. But it's not there.

It's right there in what you just posted. If there are multiple possible donors, then none of them are the "sole possible" donor. That's very different from pregnancy where there is only one possible mother.

I realize how attached you are to this metaphor. But if the same human being isn't both part of choosing the pregnancy and also the sole possible provider of that fundamental human right, gestation, then it's just not relevant.
Tom

 

[TomC]

If TomC in his well meaning but stupid declaration is allowed to create a precedent that allows Bob The Poisoner to be strapped down and have a kidney stolen from Joe the Innocent,

WTF?

Where did I suggest that a kidney should be stolen from Joe?

Are you so determined to support your nonsensical beliefs that you can't post? I don't get it.


Well actually I do. You don't care about anything but your ideological ego.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

If TomC in his well meaning but stupid declaration is allowed to create a precedent that allows Bob The Poisoner to be strapped down and have a kidney stolen from Joe the Innocent,

WTF?

Where did I suggest that a kidney should be stolen from Joe?

Are you so determined to support your nonsensical beliefs that you can't post? I don't get it.


Well actually I do. You don't care about anything but your ideological ego.
Tom

It's convenient you deleted the post I was reading as I typed the response.

The one in which you posted a scenario about a different Joe and Bob, namely about the poisoner.

This is... So ridiculously over the top dishonest, Tom. Just seriously, I can't describe how fucking dishonest that is.

 

[TomC]

It's convenient you deleted the post I was reading as I typed the response.

I didn't delete any post.
I didn't even edit anything.

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh, my bad, you didn't edit it, I'm just an idiot, and couldn't find it somehow with a search for "poison".

Here Tom, is you exactly arguing to steal a kidney from joe.

Bob poisons Joe, resulting in Joe's catastrophic kidney failure. Bob is the sole possible donor of the kidney Joe needs to survive. Bob refuses to donate the kidney.

Under those circumstances, I've got no problem with the state strapping Bob down and taking the kidney.

Tom, I mean this in the kindest possible way, please seek mental help. You are clearly in need of it. If you cannot remember what you argued mere minutes ago, this is a sign.

You should heed it, and face those demons of your own mind.