Politics Discussion

[psp]

I can assure you, I do not approve of eugenics, which is (to my understanding) basically having a "master race" (i.e. there should only be cis-white humans, and we could probably go more in detail).
I just think there is priorities. Children, they have their whole life in front of them. Old people have very little left ahead of them, and what they have ahead of them, no offence, is unlikely to ever benefit anyone ever.

As for the physically able thing, which I assume is what you are on about.
If there are two children one has Cystic Fibrosis, and one had no physical ailments. They are both in a car crash, and both need a new kidney. There is one possible donor, which means one child would die. The child with Cystic Fibrosis has a shorter life expectancy, due to their disease, than the child that doesn't, and one can assume that they will experience mild discomfort (at best) for at least part of their life.
So in this scenario, if the doctors were in charge of the decisions (due to the health care system being government owned, and not privatized) then they should, in my mind, take that into consideration, and unless the "healthy" child has a much lower chance of survival, then they shouldn't "waste" that kidney.
If the health care system is private, then whoever pays the most wins, I wouldn't be able to change that, even if I ruled the world

I had an extremely liberal english teacher last year, who discussed this with me. She would agree with you. I agree with you up to a certain point; however, my geometry teacher has more wisdom than I give him credit for, and he said this,"There is always a way to game the system, this is just one way. It's not a problem as I have no point in stopping this." It was part of a larger conversation in response to online tests.
To tie this together, I would support having the healthy child getting the kidney, but, if the child with cystic fibrosis can pay for the kidney and stop the healthy child from getting it, so be it. There is no point in stopping it. We would be better served to using that money gotten from the kidney to fund research for other medical things, such as what @Strikingwolf was talking about.

There will always be a way to "game the system".
I really wish more research and funding was put into genetic manipulation and other cloning.
(Don't really know much about that subject, sorry if a lot of money is being used to fund those two agenda)

 

[trajing]

True, but not in the eugenics method. That is a bad idea

This. I think that we should only mess around with biology when it's for the mutual benefit of humanity. Genetic engineering for increased production of crops good. Biological weapons bad.

 

[Strikingwolf]

To tie this together, I would support having the healthy child getting the kidney, but, if the child with cystic fibrosis can pay for the kidney and stop the healthy child from getting it, so be it. There is no point in stopping it. We would be better served to using that money gotten from the kidney to fund research for other medical things, such as what @Strikingwolf was talking about.

Uh, no, my entire point was that you should give the kidney to the healthy child...but that we shouldn't select through cutting off healthcare and such...

 

[Strikingwolf]

This. I think that we should only mess around with biology when it's for the mutual benefit of humanity. Genetic engineering for increased production of crops good. Biological weapons bad.

^

 

[psp]

This. I think that we should only mess around with biology when it's for the mutual benefit of humanity. Genetic engineering for increased production of crops good. Biological weapons bad.

I read a fairly good sci fi book about biological weapons. They basically engineered a super virus that halted the chemical reactions in all living things.
Off-topic, I know, but this is me saying I agree with you there.

Uh, no, my entire point was that you should give the kidney to the healthy child...but that we shouldn't select through cutting off healthcare and such...

Sorry, I think I misquoted or looked at the wrong thing.
I agree with funding the funding of cloning and other advanced medical related things. (<--- thats what I was trying to say)

 

[Strikingwolf]

Denying health care to people because they have disabilities is disgusting. How would you feel if someone told you that you won't get healthcare because you're lesser worth? You're setting values on human lives, which is completely obnoxious.

No no no...you aren't denying healthcare, you are prioritizing, doctors already do this all the time.

 

[psp]

Sorry, I was agreeing with RavynousHunter.

 

[trajing]

Denying health care to people because they have disabilities is disgusting. How would you feel if someone told you that you won't get healthcare because you're lesser worth? You're setting values on human lives, which is completely obnoxious.

This - don't ask me how, I have no clue - made me think of the Hitler Calculator.

 

[Strikingwolf]

Completely same thing. "You're lesser worth, so we'll just let you die and save a good person instead".

So you're saying that the other alternative of basing it off of monetary value is better?
"The other person has more money, so you're going to die"
Much worse than investing it in the person that will have a better life

 

[psp]

Completely same thing. "You're lesser worth, so we'll just let you die and save a good person instead".

But think of the choice. If there is one kidney. They both have 5 hours to live. One child with a serious medical disability that gives him/her a shortened lifespan. You are going to have to make an impossible choice. If I had to make that decision, I would give the kidney to the healthy child knowing that he could make a larger contribution to society. It really isn't a pleasant idea. But nevertheless, if this situation did happen, who would you choose to give the kidney?

 

[trajing]

But think of the choice. If there is one kidney. They both have 5 hours to live. One child with a serious medical disability that gives him/her a shortened lifespan. You are going to have to make an impossible choice. If I had to make that decision, I would give the kidney to the healthy child knowing that he could make a larger contribution to society. It really isn't a pleasant idea. But nevertheless, if this situation did happen, who would you choose to give the kidney?

This is almost identical to the trolley problem.

 

[Strikingwolf]

It should be random.

Well a random system has similar problems
"Well look the spiny wheel picked the other person, guess you get to die"

One can't set a price on human life.

Yes, yes you can, humans do it all the time internally.

But think of the choice. If there is one kidney. They both have 5 hours to live. One child with a serious medical disability that gives him/her a shortened lifespan. You are going to have to make an impossible choice. If I had to make that decision, I would give the kidney to the healthy child knowing that he could make a larger contribution to society. It really isn't a pleasant idea. But nevertheless, if this situation did happen, who would you choose to give the kidney?

^
I'll agree it is a terrible decision to make, but there is a right answer, it is just something that sounds terrible.

It is similar to this situation. I can shoot my friend to save 10 people. Do I shoot my friend or let 10 people die? The logical decision would be to shoot my friend, but that is such an impossible decision to make that we as humans would rather choose to let 10 people die

 

[Strikingwolf]

This is almost identical to the trolley problem.

Yes, yes it is

 

[trajing]

That is to set a price on human life. Disgusting as hell. For situations like this, we have randomnumbergenerator.com.

I prefer Random.org.

 

[Strikingwolf]

That is to set a price on human life. Disgusting as hell. For situations like this, we have randomnumbergenerator.com.

The fact is that there is a price to human life. It is measurable. Disgusting, yes. Practical and logical, yes.

 

[Strikingwolf]

I prefer Random.org.

random.org is better

 

[psp]

That is to set a price on human life. Disgusting as hell. For situations like this, we have randomnumbergenerator.com.

This is just someone not owning up to the situation and running from a decision like a coward. You are just using a proxy to say,"You die, sorry, it wasn't me but a computer who choose you".

 

[Strikingwolf]

This is just someone not owning up to the situation and running from a decision like a coward. You are just using a proxy to say,"You die, sorry, it wasn't me but a computer who choose you".

I completely agree. It is running away from a decision that can be made logically

 

[trajing]

Time to be called an idealistic moron!
Suppose, if you will, a society much like our own, in a future that may be possible but is somewhat far off and unlikely. We have workable cures for nearly anything, and what's remaining (eg cancer) we have workable treatments for with reasonable rates of survival. Now, suppose this (nearly identical) problem (which is ambiguous because I don't want to look up a ton of illnesses):
You have item A, which can be used to save the lives of one of these people:

1. An otherwise healthy person
2. A person with illness B, which is debilitating but curable
3. A person with illness C, which is one of the few illnesses that we do not have an absolute cure for, but takes a while to act and [Person 3] is currently still doing well

Who would you save? (woo new trolley problem, everyone!)

 

[Strikingwolf]

There is NO price to human life. There is way more to a human than what he'll produce. Heck, by that logic, we should execute all sick people for being a waste of money.

From a completely logical and not emotional standpoint. All there is to a human is what they will produce through any means. Our actions and thoughts are all we are. However, executing all sick people doesn't make sense because they could go on to do more things. It is brutal, but it is true.

How would you feel as a mother if your child was left to die in favor of a "superior" child?

I would feel terrible, but that doesn't mean it would be the wrong decision. You know why? Because that is the process that causes us to exist. It is the process of evolution. We are here because of that brutal system