13 ms·

Tumorectomy is not just a medical procedure, there is a third party involved: the cancer. Now I find the religious view that a cancer exists as soon the cell st

by IX-103 4y ago

Tumorectomy is not just a medical procedure, there is a third party involved: the cancer. Now I find the religious view that a cancer exists as soon the cell starts replicating uncontrollably ridiculous. But I find equally ridiculous the dismissal of the cancer's life implied by calling it just a "medical procedure". I think it's fine. The cancer is not able to survive in it's own and has a significant negative impact on the person carrying it. To make medical removal illegal even in cases where continuing to carry the cancer threatens the life of the one carrying it displays reckless disregard for their safety.

Banana699 4y ago
You would have a point if cancer had a heart and a brain and was observed to develop into a sentient being after 9 months. Or if cancer was the result of a deliberate and voluntary action that the vast crushing majority of people older than 15 years understand its inevitable consequences. Alas, none of that is true, and your remark can only win you a comfortable position in the mental gymnastics Olympics. And a 1st place in the moral bankruptcy competition, for comparing infants to a disease.
- sanp 4y ago
  So, I should be forced to give blood if someone’s life is at risk and they need my blood (or, kidney)? There is a 3rd party to consider here and they are already living and breathing. So, blood or organ donations should be made mandatory. And if the argument is that the woman is responsible for getting pregnant then apply the above logic to a person you accidentally injured in a car accident. Now, anyone who causes a car accident should be forced to give blood (or any other part of their body) to ensure the victim is saved.
  - Banana699 4y ago
    >anyone who causes a car accident should be forced to give blood (or any other part of their body) to ensure the victim is saved. Yes. >So, I should be forced to give blood if someone’s life is at risk and they need my blood (or, kidney)? If that someone being in risk was the inevitable biological result of your actions, then yes. You should be forced to save him/her. Because you put him/her there.
    - jquery 4y ago
      So if you gave someone Covid and their lungs failed, they have a right to one of your lungs? Should men be required to donate organs to women they got pregnant, if indicated? This is obviously very silly and not thought out. Banning abortion is just as silly.
      - Banana699 4y ago
        >So if you gave someone Covid and their lungs failed, they have a right to one of your lungs Yes, if you can 1- Prove that I infected them And, 2- Prove that no other solution would save the infected person, and organ donation would >Should men be required to donate organs to women they got pregnant Not if the impregnation was consensual. The person infected with Covid or hit by a car didn't consent to those actions, but a pregnant woman consented to impregnation unless she's raped, therefore she should accept responsibility for the associated risks. Rape is one of the very few reasons where abortion should be allowed. But it's something like 0.1% or so of abortion reasons, the vast majority of abortions are morally indefensible.
- snypher 4y ago
  >deliberate and voluntary You know people can be raped right?
  - RalfWausE 4y ago
    Just being the devils advocate: Contraceptives do also work while being raped...
    - jquery 4y ago
      Does an 11 year old have access to contraceptives from her father that’s raping her?
  - spoils19 4y ago
    Legitimate rape rarely leads to pregnancy [1]. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/19/republican-todd-akin-rape-pregnancy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/19/republican-tod...

by IX-103 4y ago

Banana699 4y ago

You would have a point if cancer had a heart and a brain and was observed to develop into a sentient being after 9 months. Or if cancer was the result of a deliberate and voluntary action that the vast crushing majority of people older than 15 years understand its inevitable consequences. Alas, none of that is true, and your remark can only win you a comfortable position in the mental gymnastics Olympics. And a 1st place in the moral bankruptcy competition, for comparing infants to a disease.

sanp 4y ago
So, I should be forced to give blood if someone’s life is at risk and they need my blood (or, kidney)? There is a 3rd party to consider here and they are already living and breathing. So, blood or organ donations should be made mandatory. And if the argument is that the woman is responsible for getting pregnant then apply the above logic to a person you accidentally injured in a car accident. Now, anyone who causes a car accident should be forced to give blood (or any other part of their body) to ensure the victim is saved.
- Banana699 4y ago
  >anyone who causes a car accident should be forced to give blood (or any other part of their body) to ensure the victim is saved. Yes. >So, I should be forced to give blood if someone’s life is at risk and they need my blood (or, kidney)? If that someone being in risk was the inevitable biological result of your actions, then yes. You should be forced to save him/her. Because you put him/her there.
  - jquery 4y ago
    So if you gave someone Covid and their lungs failed, they have a right to one of your lungs? Should men be required to donate organs to women they got pregnant, if indicated? This is obviously very silly and not thought out. Banning abortion is just as silly.
    - Banana699 4y ago
      >So if you gave someone Covid and their lungs failed, they have a right to one of your lungs Yes, if you can 1- Prove that I infected them And, 2- Prove that no other solution would save the infected person, and organ donation would >Should men be required to donate organs to women they got pregnant Not if the impregnation was consensual. The person infected with Covid or hit by a car didn't consent to those actions, but a pregnant woman consented to impregnation unless she's raped, therefore she should accept responsibility for the associated risks. Rape is one of the very few reasons where abortion should be allowed. But it's something like 0.1% or so of abortion reasons, the vast majority of abortions are morally indefensible.
snypher 4y ago
>deliberate and voluntary You know people can be raped right?
- RalfWausE 4y ago
  Just being the devils advocate: Contraceptives do also work while being raped...
  - jquery 4y ago
    Does an 11 year old have access to contraceptives from her father that’s raping her?
- spoils19 4y ago
  Legitimate rape rarely leads to pregnancy [1]. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/19/republican-todd-akin-rape-pregnancy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/19/republican-tod...