Is this moral or immoral?? Just or unjust??

Question

Ok so lets say some famous celebrity has this kidney disease and he is going to die. The only thing that can save him is some sort of special blood type, and you are the only one that has this type. To save him the doctors would have to plug your kidneys into his.

So this celebrity's fans kidnap you and you wake up with you kidneys plugged into his to save him. The doctors tell you that you would have to satay in bed with him for 9 months so he can get better, but there is a chance that you can die because of the procedure, and the doctors cannot unplug him from you because they would be killing the celebrity.

If you unplug yourself you would be killing him.

So you weight the issue and you unplug yourself.

Is what you did just or unjust? Is it moral or immoral?

What if you had no chance of dying what if you were just to stay in bed for 9 months until he got better. If you unpluged yourself would it be unjust? immoral?

and answer:

Do you think abortion is immoral? Unjust?

Answer 1

I would help any one but  celebrities , on my own free will

Answer 2

I'd unplug him, unless he could come up with a serious amount of cash.

No-one is obliged to save another as such a big cost to themselves. Especially after being placed in such a situation by a criminal act.

Answer 3

A "Law and Order" episode used this plot.

The ethics of the doctors is quite questionable. Arguably the kidnappers needed to have medical training and just how did the doctors agree to get involved? (Unless there's some convenient plot twists)

Lets see, I've been kidnapped, medically assaulted and placed at risk of my life. If I escape, the criminal responsible for kidnapping, assault, threat of death and torture (9 months is torture) will die.

I understand the situation but fail to find any problem.

Answer 4

This is a very well thought-out analogy with just one real flaw: In the example given, you and the celebrity both have souls. A fetus does not have a soul. God does not create and impute the soul to the fetus until and unless it is

A) Viable (capable of sustaining biological life) and

B) The fetus takes its first breath

You must understand the difference between soul life and biological life, also known as the "Doctrine of the Origin of Human Life" to understand this subject.

Knowing and understanding this, if a mother aborts a pregnancy because she has a change of mind or circumstances in her life change such that she no longer wants to have a child, it is her right and is neither immoral nor unjust. In the case of pre-birth abortion God does not create a soul so no life other than biological life is lost, and biological life can easily be rebuilt in another fetus at a later time.

The key determining factor is the first breath or "breath of life" (N'shemah is the Hebrew word used in the Old Testament) As long as there is no breath, then there is no soul life as far as God is concerned. In some cases a late abortion may be considered a waste of resources (doctors, medical supplies, time, money, etc.) and as such may be a sin or several sins, but never in any case where the soul is not imputed could it ever be considered murder.

Answer 5

I'm afraid your analogy falls apart in several places.

The celebrity is fully human, not a zygote.

"You" are not strapped to a bed for nine months, if you get pregnant.

Frequently you became pregnant through a voluntary act of your own, not because you were kidnapped.

Besides, there ARE ways to keep the celebrity alive; at most, one kidney would do, and it could be transplanted; until one became available, there's dialysis.

No, I don't think abortion is wrong; I just don't think your story works.

There are, BTW, people who would say that, once you're in that situation (the story), yes, it would be murder for you to actively unplug.

Answer 6

I wouldnt touch the abortion issue in this format.

Answer 7

First off, as far as I know, no such procedure exists. I see no good reason why dialysis could not be performed after I was "unhooked." Furthermore I have seen little evidence that any of the celebrity fans I have seen (at least those with this much zeal) would have the faculties to to pull off high school algebra, let alone such a complicated procedure.

I don't think it would be right to kill this person if his life depends on you, but the situation isn't that simple. It was unjust for me to be hooked to this person against my will in the first place. Killing him outright might be immoral, but what if I had the choice before I was hooked up? This sounds like a dangerous procedure. Would anyone blame me for not wanting to risk my life? At any rate, it would certainly not be illegal of me to refuse.

Once in the situation I'd probably opt to save the guy's life, but those people who kidnapped me would be getting a glut of trouble from either my lawyer and me in the courtroom, or my baseball bat and me at two in the morning on their front porches.

As for abortion, my wife probably said it best. "Abortion isn't the problem. Unwanted pregnancies are the problem. Abortion is a solution to that problem, even if it's a bad one." Look at the cultural factors and how our society treats pregnancy (especially unmarried pregnant women or teens). What solution can you currently offer that's all around better than a simple escape, at least in the short term? Make other options seem better, or make fewer pregnancies unwanted, because people will do as they will.