Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. I thought you were talking about the person who actually destroyed the kidney, replacing it.
2. My question was about murderers being forced to be kidney donors.
1. I'm not sure if we are on the same page here, so let me restate my position here--if someone stabbed someone else in the kidney and there are currently no available kidney matches for this individual (the one who was stabbed in the kidney), I would support "forcing"* the kidney stabber to donate this kidney of his/hers.
*Again, I mean that he will get a much smaller punishment for what he did if he agrees to donate this kidney.
2. As for murderers being kidney donors to individuals whom they did nothing bad/wrong to, I need to think it over a bit, but I am tempted to say Yes if there is currently a shortage of available kidneys, et cetera and if this will save (more) lives.
just a question. I could give two craps about abortion, but I am curious as to why liberals support regulating everything from large sodas to guns, but want a free for all abortion society.
I will answer you sincere question ....
We live a society in which we each share and exist on this earth and share in its resources - air, water, land. As much as we would like to think we are self reliant , we each don't live in our own little bubble. Now, there are some decisions, actions, things we do that ultimately do not have an effect beyond ourselves or those within our inner circle. However, there are other decisions which Do and will have consequences to not ONLY ourselves, but spread to others.
Regulations have often come about for many reasons. Usually it's because some groups, companies, etc. somewhere took liberties that ultimately created situations that did damage to the society in which they exists and/or had an adverse affect on the quality of life of those that we share this space, this planet with.
Unregulated banks = actions that lead to misuse of other people's money, causing damage to the financial stability of many
Unregulated environment = polluted water, air .. imagine what our planet would look like if we didn't have rules to protect the earth we share!
DWI laws - well because your decision to drive drunk could kill someone else.
And so, that goes on and on.
However, a women having an abortion DOES NOT effect the society in which they live...... if your neighbor had an abortion you would never know, you would never suffer a consequence, your quality of life would not be affected. The only persons it affects is the individual and perhaps their inner circle (the dad). Whatever they decide is between the souls of the mother, the child, maybe the father and whatever God they believe (or in some cases don't believe in).
Going a step further - two gay people marrying doesn't have an effect on your marriage.
So, for me the litmus test is - if this were to go unregulated, how would decisions, poor decisions, good decisions , action or inaction affect the quality of life or lives of others outside myself and my inner circle... if the answer is that it will effect society in any negative way.. then it needs to be regulated so that we can continue to live harmoniously and maintain a level of quality of life.
1. I'm not sure if we are on the same page here, so let me restate my position here--if someone stabbed someone else in the kidney and there are currently no available kidney matches for this individual (the one who was stabbed in the kidney), I would support "forcing"* the kidney stabber to donate this kidney of his/hers.
*Again, I mean that he will get a much smaller punishment for what he did if he agrees to donate this kidney.
2. As for murderers being kidney donors to individuals whom they did nothing bad/wrong to, I need to think it over a bit, but I am tempted to say Yes if there is currently a shortage of available kidneys, et cetera and if this will save (more) lives.
Yes, I knew that was what you meant........my question just carried it a step further.
Anyway, I think that I answered all of your questions by now. If you have any more/additional questions for now, please let me know.
Also, what would your responses be to your and my questions in regards to this?
Like you, I am not sure about the forced kidney donations.....but I am leaning towards yes.
One thing I am sure about.....I think instead of lethal injection.....they should just take them to an operating room......harvest all viable parts.....and let them die on the table. That is the closest they will ever come to making up for killing someone.
It really goes against my grain to deliberately throw away perfectly good hearts, livers, lungs, kidneys, etc. that could save so many lives.
If you are going to execute them....why not do it in a way that can save lives?
Back on topic......I think we should do more for those who are born than worry about women making the best choice for themselves.
1. Actually, if one considers embryos and fetuses to be persons/worthy of rights, then my analogy with the kidney stabbing fits pretty well. After all, in both cases someone's willing actions/decisions created a situation with a dependent person.
No it still doesn't because embryos/fetuses/zygotes are incapable of conscious thought and mental capacity. So again, your logic here falls way, way, way, WAY short of the mark. Why would the stabber give the victim of a stabbing his or her kidney? That analogy fails on so many levels.
Quote:
2. You mean just like "the kidney stabber's body, his choice?"
Nope. Comparing kidney's to fetuses is totally illogical and now you're just stretching trying to push your agenda because you have no basis for any of your claims. It's the woman's body, it's her choice. Period.
Quote:
3. I was talking about the choice in regards to whether or not to pay child support here (in regards to the man), rather than the choice in regards to whether or not to get an abortion.
Woman's choice to get an abortion > Man's choice to pay child support.
They don't even compare and the fact that you even thought to compare the two just shows how close minded you really towards the choice a woman has over her body.
just a question. I could give two craps about abortion, but I am curious as to why liberals support regulating everything from large sodas to guns, but want a free for all abortion society.
Not always--in fact, the courts might have sometimes helped anti-abortion people--for instance, remember who the U.S. SC supported in 2000? Remember which U.S. SC Justices Bush Jr. appointed?
Oh, and for the record, I have some online friends who are pretty knowledgeable in regards to the U.S. Constitution and/or Constitutional law who disagree with these courts' rulings.
Until your internet friends are actually on the Supreme Court, their opinions don't really mean much.
No it still doesn't because embryos/fetuses/zygotes are incapable of conscious thought and mental capacity. So again, your logic here falls way, way, way, WAY short of the mark.
When does conscious thought begin? Are you sure you don't fall as short as Furturist?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you have any more/additional questions for now, please let me know.
