I will answer collectively to my critics.
On organ harvesting as I’ve said prisoners can live without kidneys and should prisoners need health care due to it I support it. Thus less people will die from kidney failure while at the same time not sacrificing prisoner’s lives.
As for the the lack of biblical support on my beliefs on abortion, my belief is that since the Bible has very few direct passages on abortion it comes even more down on the question of whether fetuses are human life or not.
I think you need to read what QtM, an actual MD says. (Bolding mine)
You probably aren’t going to last 30yrs on dialysis, and even if you do, your body will be crap. You’ve pretty much given the prisoner a death sentence. Also, do you realize how expensive dialysis is? Without a drastic increase in funding, a scheme like this would bankrupt just about any state’s system. And that’s just the practical argument against it, ignoring how heinous the practice is morally.
ETA- The 30yrs thing assumes only long-term prisoners would be ‘donating.’
Hmm. Perhaps you do have a point. But I think it will still be fine for criminals who have life sentences for horrible crimes like pedophilia or murder. Or criminals who have died in prison.
Fortunately, we live in a country where the Bill of Rights is still in effect. Many people, including your usernamesake, have fought to defend those freedoms.
The “Creator” cited in the Declaration of Independence isn’t God of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ’s dad. Many (most??) of the founding fathers were deists.
I like the way you think and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Wait. What!? We have to go back and check? I thought this was a “two birds with one stone” sort of thing. Dammit.
And, to protect that potential life, we can enact legislation to limit abortion.
I disagree with Curtis LeMay about a fetus being a “person” entitled to the full range of Constitutional protections. However, I do find the “potential that exists at conception” (to use your term) to be an interest that the government can act to protect.
I fully agree.
We can certainly value “people’s freedom to choose for themselves” without having to allow abortions. In fact, that is what we do now. Third trimester abortions are, by and large, regulated. And a good majority of Americans support those laws. So there a point, generally considered post viability, where there is a recognition that the government does have to “let whatever god” decide.
If people are dying from kidney failure, well, why not just remove their kidneys! After all, you can live without them! :rolleyes:
If you’re looking for “direct passages” then you’re not going to find them. (If it’s any consolation, I went looking for “direct passages” on how to handle problems with my Facebook account, but could not find them.) However, Exodus 21 is pretty clear that fetuses are not given the same value as even a woman. So, the answer to the question of whether fetuses are human life or not (from a Biblical standpoint) is “no”.
Forgive me if I missed something, but perhaps Curtis is saying that removing one kidney from a prisoner won’t kill them and won’t require dialysis (assuming the remaining kidney is functioning). Sort of a spread-the-kidney-wealth-around philosophy.
Not that I agree with his proposal in the slightest, but medically speaking there is a midway point between having 2 kidneys and none.
That’s certainly possible, but a certain level of clarity should be expected from those making rather radical proposals. So far, that clarity has been lacking regarding the OP’s ideas about revolutionizing correctional medical care.
If you wanted to go from a biblical standpoint, couldn’t you just look to Genesis? Adam didn’t become a human until God gave him the “breath of life.” The body was there, it was formed from the Earth. But it didn’t become a man until it breathed.
I thought that he may be saying that also, but his lack of clearing that up after being told that one can’t live without both kidneys unless receiving dialysis and his response in post #223 say otherwise.
He said “Kidneys you can live without having them,” which suggests zero kidneys. So if he’s serious about this idea at all, he seems to be going whole hog. 
I think giving up one kidney will still shorten your life significantly.
Nah.
http://www.umm.edu/transplant/kidney/qanda.htm#6
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/urinary-health/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100233204
I thought we had already done that. Isn’t that what you’re referring to later in this post?
I didn’t say the government can or should act to protect that potential. I’m saying we cultivate a general societal philosophy of honoring that potential. That would include honoring the potential of children actually born and by working for accessible health care and education. Concerning abortion it would include funded available options for pregnant women and girls who were willing to carry to term but did not want to retain custody.
I think it’s a question of when that choice can or should be made rather than if. Viability is certainly a legitimate point to raise.
This is a matter of opinion which cannot be resolved by science, since what make a human being is a philosophical, not a scientific question. Given that, why not women follow their judgment. If someone things a fetus is human, like Sarah Palin, she will not have an abortion, which is perfectly compatible with a pro-Choice position. Someone thinking a fetus is not human yet may choose to have one. Problem solved.
If carrying an unwanted fetus to term was cost free, I could see banning abortions just to be safe. But it is not, so I’d rather let each woman in this position balance those risks herself, since the cost depends on her health, financial and living situation, and her mental state.
We all agree that a child is a person after birth, and the government has a set of laws to protect children - car seat laws, child endangerment laws, laws against abandonment except in specific cases, laws not allowing parents to leave children in cars.
If you think the government should protect this “potential life” then you should support laws to prohibit pregnant mothers from drinking, smoking, taking drugs, not eating properly, or engaging in all sorts of risky behaviors. The resulting lack of control over her body should be no issue, since youd oppose her control over her body by wishing to ban abortions.
How does that sound?
Translation: since the Bible doesn’t provide for me the support I need for my position on this issue, I’ll just make stuff up based on how I feel about things.
Abortion In The Future
So it’s now 2050. We have the technology to create an artificial womb. A woman who wants a baby but doesn’t wish to (or cannot) carry a baby to term doesn’t need a surrogate; the fertilization can happen in utereo and then an immediate extraction done to the artificial womb, with no more medical risk than aborting would cause.
The 52nd state in the United States adopts legislation that forbids abortion and mandates the use of these artificial wombs as an alternative.
Do you support this legislation? And assuming there are no relevant changes to the law between now and then, do you think it’s constitutional?