Philosophy Now Forum

Let's say that there's this exotic, hypothetical cancer that people could develop as a result of some strange mixture of the atmosphere and adrenaline: it's possible to get this cancer by going hang gliding, by riding fast on a motorcycle, rock climbing, etc. (Yeah, yeah, I know, just stay with me, I have my reasons).

Amazingly, scientists discover that this cancer, which can't be reproduced in a lab, has miraculous curative properties that could save many peoples' lives. The downside is that they have to let it grow in a human being for a long enough time in order to be able to extract enough of its magic juice.

The cancer is eventually fatal, but it can reasonably be left to grow for a couple of months (but even then, the mortality rate is nonzero, depending on patient complications).

Its healing properties are so remarkable, and it's so impossible to grow on its own in a lab or in non-human animals, that people begin to wonder about the ethics of people undergoing chemo to treat it too soon (before enough of its magic juice can be harvested).

Would it be ethical for the state to insist that someone that develops this cancer keep it in their body for a relatively safe (but again, not certainly safe) small period of time, such as a month, before they can seek to remove or treat it? After all, there are people that would die if a person chooses to remove the rare growth.

Would it be ethical to tell people that contracted this cancer, "well, you shouldn't have hang glided, now you must give up your bodily autonomy so people that would die if you removed this cancer now can live?" Do their lives trump your bodily autonomy?

(Yes, I know this whole hang gliding thing is awkward, but I'm trying to capture in this analogy the response a lot of people give to certain things that "well, you performed the action that leads to this, so now you don't have bodily autonomy anymore")

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:37 am Would it be ethical to tell people that contracted this cancer, "well, you shouldn't have hang glided, now you must give up your bodily autonomy so people that would die if you removed this cancer now can live?" Do their lives trump your bodily autonomy?

I'll go with 'no'.

(Yes, I know this whole hang gliding thing is awkward, but I'm trying to capture in this analogy the response a lot of people give to certain things that "well, you performed the action that leads to this, so now you don't have bodily autonomy anymore")

Hey, it made me curious. What this all an analogy for?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:38 am Hey, it made me curious. What this all an analogy for?

Just an abortion/bodily autonomy analogy.

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:56 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:38 am Hey, it made me curious. What this all an analogy for?

Just an abortion/bodily autonomy analogy.

Ah, duh (duh is aimed at me).

The analogy is ok, but it won't bridge at least some of the gap. In your analogy we have a disease that gets killed. In the abortion issue we have a fetus (or baby for the other side). Obviously you know this. So, you have this idea that if the disease comes to term (so to speak) already living people get to live instead of die, I think to anti-a group will argue that we are not obligated to save in the same way we are forbidden to kill (the innocent).

It reminds me a bit of the survival lottery. We can kill one healthy person and save a number of people with his or her organs. I think Christians, for example, will feel safe just saying not to that, and many secular people do.

Hm.

How about this? Nearly every anti-abortionist could donate money to feed children where there is famine or drought or to give medical attention and clean water (etc.) to other children. Now here many would say that it not through their choices the children were put in those situations. But that should end the debate on conceptions after rape.

But despite these children not existing because of an antiabortinist, this seems like a pretty weak defense. What there are saying is it's not my fault, and I'd rather be able to take my kids to the movies, then make sure 5 kids make it through another years.

So, while they can claim they have no obligation, this doesn't explain why they have so much passion about unborn babies but not much about children who are in danger of dying.

So, it might give the lie to the whole context of their position, without demonstrating they are necessarily wrong according to their own principles.

I mean, Jesus said that one needed to stop adultery in one's heart - lusting in the mind.

So, being antiabortion ought to go farther than making sure no one else kills or 'kills' but even includes passion to stop kids on is not responsible for dying. I mean the kid in that woman's womb is not their responsibility, and yet, sooooo much passion.

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:56 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:38 am Hey, it made me curious. What this all an analogy for?

Just an abortion/bodily autonomy analogy.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 1:38 am
Consider these outlandish scenarios...

1 Your best friend is dyin' and you agree to be surgically bound to him for 9 months as part of a life-savin' treatment (your organs will supplement his). At the end of 9 months, your friend will be cured of what was killin' him and you'll be temporarily drained but, overall, no worse for wear. Midway thru, you begin to have second thoughts.

2 Someone is dyin' and you agree, for a small but satisfyin' fee, to be surgically bound to him for 9 months as part of a life-savin' treatment (your organs will supplement his). At the end of 9 months, the person will be cured of what was killin' him and you'll be temporarily drained but, overall, no worse for wear. Midway thru, you begin to have second thoughts.

3 You awake to find you've been surgically bound to a stranger, without your permission. A doctor explains this stranger's life is utterly dependent on yours for 9 months. If disconnected early, the stranger will die. The stranger, by the way, is unconscious, and had no say in the surgical binding either. You are outraged at the violation of your life and body.

4 A twist on # 1: midway thru the 9 months, it's discovered, unexpectedly, your heart is overstrained. It's likely your friend will fully recover as expected, but you will die from a failure of your over-worked heart. However, if you are disconnected now you will recover but your friend, bein' severed from you, will die.

What is your proper course of action in these scenarios? Disconnect or remain connected?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:02 pm Consider these outlandish scenarios...
2 Someone is dyin' and you agree, for a small but satisfyin' fee, to be surgically bound to him for 9 months as part of a life-savin' treatment (your organs will supplement his). At the end of 9 months, the person will be cured of what was killin' him and you'll be temporarily drained but, overall, no worse for wear. Midway thru, you begin to have second thoughts.

How much do you donate so that children will have clear water and enough nutrition or medical care to survive? Do you still have money leftover to buy a smartphone or pay for netflix, maybe some beers? Maybe your not drained enough for it to be enough, yet.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:17 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:02 pm Consider these outlandish scenarios...
2 Someone is dyin' and you agree, for a small but satisfyin' fee, to be surgically bound to him for 9 months as part of a life-savin' treatment (your organs will supplement his). At the end of 9 months, the person will be cured of what was killin' him and you'll be temporarily drained but, overall, no worse for wear. Midway thru, you begin to have second thoughts.

How much do you donate so that children will have clear water and enough nutrition or medical care to survive? Do you still have money leftover to buy a smartphone or pay for netflix, maybe some beers? Maybe your not drained enough for it to be enough, yet.

Not sure how your comments connect to that particular scenario.

I am sure you're runnin' the same scam sculptor did when he asked how many kids I had adopted.

The scam, and it is a scam, is a non-starter. It's like sayin' if you ain't givin' people rides you got no call to object to car theft.

And, for the record, not that it's any of your, or anyone's, business: all my resources go to feedin', shelterin', raisin', defendin', lovin', carin' for, my 15 year old (who I adopted).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:48 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:17 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:02 pm Consider these outlandish scenarios...
2 Someone is dyin' and you agree, for a small but satisfyin' fee, to be surgically bound to him for 9 months as part of a life-savin' treatment (your organs will supplement his). At the end of 9 months, the person will be cured of what was killin' him and you'll be temporarily drained but, overall, no worse for wear. Midway thru, you begin to have second thoughts.

How much do you donate so that children will have clear water and enough nutrition or medical care to survive? Do you still have money leftover to buy a smartphone or pay for netflix, maybe some beers? Maybe your not drained enough for it to be enough, yet.

Not sure how your comments connect to that particular scenario.

I am sure you're runnin' the same scam sculptor did when he asked how many kids I had adopted.

The scam, and it is a scam, is a non-starter. It's like sayin' if you ain't givin' people rides you got no call to object to car theft.

And, for the record, not that it's any of your, or anyone's, business: all my resources go to feedin', shelterin', raisin', defendin', lovin', carin' for, my 15 year old (who I adopted).

The car analogy is poor because we don't care about the cars in themselves. Here's what I am getting at. I think it's bs to an enormous degree all this hoohah about the unborn. Because most of these people can be passionate about these unborn babies, but still choose to prioritize entertainment, beer, a new TV, a new vehicle, extras for themselves, rather than sending that money off to help kids who are in danger or dying. That in general, with individual exceptions, the anti-a group is presenting itself as caring about the unborn child, but manages to prioritize relatively unimportant things all the time rather than helping children already here to survive. I don't know you and you may be just getting by by the skin of your teeth supporting your child. On the other hand here you are on your phone or computer and you damn well could have spent less on whichever one it is or perhaps gotten by without one or just a dumb mobile say.

Agains individual exceptions exist, as I said in a similar post to you elsewhere. But in generall I see a lot people making a lot of fucking noise and I don't think what they care about is actually what they are saying. Or they would put their money where their mouths are. And most don't.

Here's what I am getting at...

Not seein' the relevance to anything I've posted.

I'm not sayin' you're wrong (or right), mind you, I just don't see the connect between what you've posted in apparent response to what I've posted.

The car analogy is poor because we don't care about the cars in themselves.

It is, but it made my point, I think.

-----

To avoid further jackassery, let me explain...

Your best friend is dyin' and you agree to be surgically bound to him for 9 months as part of a life-savin' treatment (your organs will supplement his). At the end of 9 months, your friend will be cured of what was killin' him and you'll be temporarily drained but, overall, no worse for wear. Midway thru, you begin to have second thoughts.

This is comparable to choosin' to get pregnant.

-

Someone is dyin' and you agree, for a small but satisfyin' fee, to be surgically bound to him for 9 months as part of a life-savin' treatment (your organs will supplement his). At the end of 9 months, the person will be cured of what was killin' him and you'll be temporarily drained but, overall, no worse for wear. Midway thru, you begin to have second thoughts.

This is comparable to an unexpected pregnancy after volitional sex.

-

You awake to find you've been surgically bound to a stranger, without your permission. A doctor explains this stranger's life is utterly dependent on yours for 9 months. If disconnected early, the stranger will die. The stranger, by the way, is unconscious, and had no say in the surgical binding either. You are outraged at the violation of your life and body.

This comparable to pregnancy after rape.

-

A twist on # 1: midway thru the 9 months, it's discovered, unexpectedly, your heart is overstrained. It's likely your friend will fully recover as expected, but you will die from a failure of your over-worked heart. However, if you are disconnected now you will recover but your friend, bein' severed from you, will die.

This is comparable to the woman's life or health bein' endangered by pregnancy.


I thought this was a better, more accurate, set of (admittedly outlandish) analogies than magic cancer as they involve actual people in moral dilemmas instead of *arcane tumors as rare, potentially autonomy-hobblin', commodity.

I thought wrong, apparently.




*btw: The State ought not dictate diddly, not for the greater good or for public safety... cuz there is no greater good, there is no public safety, and The State -- any iteration you can imagine -- is illegitimate.

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:37 am(Yes, I know this whole hang gliding thing is awkward, but I'm trying to capture in this analogy the response a lot of people give to certain things that "well, you performed the action that leads to this, so now you don't have bodily autonomy anymore")

It's a tricky analogy to sustain. We already have examples of behaviour that can fuck you up, but never cost you bodily autonomy. You can ruin your lungs and liver with fags and booze, and be stuck with the resulting body, but it's still yours. In western Europe, and some other civilised parts of the planet, I'm fairly confident there is no utilitarian, much less economic calculus, and that failing organs will be treated, despite the fact that the other offal could potentially save multiple lives and turn a profit. I'm not sure this is true in the US and the rest of the medical third world.

no chemo here...

-Imp

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:22 pm

Here's what I am getting at...

Not seein' the relevance to anything I've posted.

My point is meta. I think it does relate to the one scenario I quoted, but it would take a chunk of writing to make that clear. I chose it because it is a stranger and focused on the drained or depleted as an effect. Tehre are a lot of strangers we could deplete or drain ourselves for and likely save.

But I am feeling into this what I think is farce-like aspect of the whole debate and one that makes it more toxic. Adn this may have little to do with you as an individual, thought I think it does have to do with the anti-a group as a whole. I don't buy their passion. Not when I look at the rest of their lives. The kid in someone's womb is a stranger to them. But I see little passion to take care of already living children or to make any sacrifices for them. Now there is a difference between being responsible for conception and not carrying it to term
and
not trying to help other people's children.
But i'm not talking about responsibility. I am talking about that passion. The rage and blame. I think that must be about something else. It's a cover story. Or they would act differently. and speak differently about other things.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:48 pm all my resources go to feedin', shelterin', raisin', defendin', lovin', carin' for, my 15 year old (who I adopted).

Sure they do, you big, fat, alcoholic phony.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:27 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:48 pm all my resources go to feedin', shelterin', raisin', defendin', lovin', carin' for, my 15 year old (who I adopted).

Sure they do, you big, fat, alcoholic phony.

well, I guess this...

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:41 am Personally, I rather like you.

...ain't true.

I'm 5'8", 150 lbs., I don't drink, and, yeah, I got flaws, but phoniness ain't one of 'em.

So, what's got your gut twisted tonite, veg?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:10 am

Well, okay.