Ethical Situation

[Volts]

Suppose you have a child and your child needs blood, bone marrow, or kidney to survive an illness. Would you have the moral obligation to donate your blood, bone marrow, or kidney to your child? If you do not donate one of those things, are you in sin?

 

[csuguy]

Generally speaking however, yes you would have the moral obligation to give of yourself to save your child.

There maybe extenuating circumstances of course. For instance: Do you only have one kidney, so that giving it up would kill you? This would be an exception obviously.

 

[shagster01]

I only have one normal kidney myself. But I'd even give that to my child if needed.

 

[csuguy]

I only have one normal kidney myself. But I'd even give that to me child if needed.

Agreed - but I think when you start talking about giving your own life that it ceases to be a moral obligation, but is certainly a good thing to do.

 

[shagster01]

Agreed - but I think when you start talking about giving your own life that it ceases to be a moral obligation, but is certainly a good thing to do.

I agree. Especially in a case where it would be a single parent that is raising other children as well. You could argue that it wouldn't be right to sacrifice yourself for one child when the other children need you.

 

[PureX]

Suppose you have a child and your child needs blood, bone marrow, or kidney to survive an illness. Would you have the moral obligation to donate your blood, bone marrow, or kidney to your child? If you do not donate one of those things, are you in sin?

If you are asking this question in search of a universal answer, I don't believe there is one. Morality is personal, not universal. We each have to decide for ourselves what our moral obligations are.

I would feel morally obliged to donate anything, up to and including even my life, for the life of my child. I think many people would feel that way. But I don't see it as any sort of universal moral rule. I don't think there are any universal moral rules.

 

[Christian Liberty]

If you are asking this question in search of a universal answer, I don't believe there is one. Morality is personal, not universal. We each have to decide for ourselves what our moral obligations are.

I would feel morally obliged to donate anything, up to and including even my life, for the life of my child. I think many people would feel that way. But I don't see it as any sort of universal moral rule. I don't think there are any universal moral rules.

WHAT?

 

[Volts]

Generally speaking however, yes you would have the moral obligation to give of yourself to save your child.

There maybe extenuating circumstances of course. For instance: Do you only have one kidney, so that giving it up would kill you? This would be an exception obviously.

That is what I was thinking as well. Fathers have a responsibility to care for their children. However, if you only had one kidney, you wouldn't have the obligation to give it up.

 

[Volts]

If you are asking this question in search of a universal answer, I don't believe there is one. Morality is personal, not universal. We each have to decide for ourselves what our moral obligations are.

I would feel morally obliged to donate anything, up to and including even my life, for the life of my child. I think many people would feel that way. But I don't see it as any sort of universal moral rule. I don't think there are any universal moral rules.

There are certain moral principles that apply to everyone such as it is morally wrong to torture babies just for the fun of it.

 

[Volts]

I agree. Especially in a case where it would be a single parent that is raising other children as well. You could argue that it wouldn't be right to sacrifice yourself for one child when the other children need you.

Good point.

 

[Volts]

Would there be any inconsistency between these two statements?

A father does not have the moral obligation to allow his dying child to use his body parts such as his kidney in order to avoid death.

A pregnant woman has the moral obligation to allow the unborn human to continue to use her uterus.

The reason why I'm asking is because some pro-choice advocates think that there is an inconsistency between those two statements. If it is morally wrong for a woman to get an abortion, then it is morally wrong for a father to not save his child from death.

 

[PureX]

There are certain moral principles that apply to everyone such as it is morally wrong to torture babies just for the fun of it.

How do you imagine this applies to everyone? At any given time on the planet I'm sure there will be a number of people who think torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable behavior. And a whole lot more who simply just don't care.

 

[Volts]

How do you imagine this applies to everyone? At any given time on the planet I'm sure there will be a number of people who think torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable behavior. And a whole lot more who simply just don't care.

It is wrong for everyone to do it.

 

[Rusha]

Would there be any inconsistency between these two statements?

A father does not have the moral obligation to allow his dying child to use his body parts such as his kidney in order to avoid death.

A pregnant woman has the moral obligation to allow the unborn human to continue to use her uterus.

The reason why I'm asking is because some pro-choice advocates think that there is an inconsistency between those two statements. If it is morally wrong for a woman to get an abortion, then it is morally wrong for a father to not save his child from death.

The situations, have some similarities, BUT are different in important ways.

The main difference is causation: A consensual act on the part of a woman set the wheels in motion. It's not okay to fix your own self-made situations by killing an innocent party. THAT is what abortion is about ...

In the second scenario, I believe a parent should always sacrifice their lives for their child IF that is the only way to save the child.

However, what is not being considered is the fact that there might be a chance of another donor or a treatment that could be as affective or superior to the father donating his kidney. For example, does he have two healthy kidneys? Is there a better match?

Also, it seems to me that the question is a ploy/set up for pro-abortion advocates to say "SEE ... it's not expected for a man to sacrifice his life".

So, yes, if the father's kidney is the only way to save the life, then yes, he is morally obligated. Then again, so is the mother.

 

[Stripe]

Suppose you have a child and your child needs blood, bone marrow, or kidney to survive an illness. Would you have the moral obligation to donate your blood, bone marrow, or kidney to your child? If you do not donate one of those things, are you in sin?

No and no.

 

[PureX]

It is wrong for everyone to do it.

I don't know. I'm not in charge of what's right and wrong for 'everyone'. You're asking me to pass judgments on people and situations that I know nothing about, and will never know about.