So you have the right even to intentionally bring someone into a situation in which they are dependant on you… and then kill them whenever you fancy by removing their means of support?
What are you, campaigning for President of the Straight Dope? Is all this bombastic, self-important rhetoric supposed to impress?
Are you rwjefferson?
I’m sorry, I was under the impression that you posted on a message board. If you intended your posts to be privately addressed to rwjefferson, perhaps an email would be a more logical form of communication.
Hamlet, thank you for providing that cite. I agree with your interpretation of that, and am also left to wonder why the policies at my daughter’s hospital were so radically different. Methinks we have a bit of a gap between policy and procedure here. On the other hand, I see no direct address of parental rights in that document, and parents are generally recognized to have the right to refuse medical treatment to their children unless ordered otherwise by a judge, are they not? So I’m left confused.
It’s a bit confusing because Congress doesn’t necessarily have the power to legislate in this area, so it goes more by a state by state basis. A vast majority of state’s have statutes that would allow for the reporting of abuse or neglect by removing life support from an otherwise healthy premature infant. The thinking, which I agree with, is that why would the removal of life support from an otherwise healthy premature baby be any different from starving your kid to death? The idea that you could keep food and water from an infant, even one who is premature, who is otherwise healthy, is, to say the very least, troublesome. The reason there may be a “gap” is that it is unimaginable that parents would allow their child to die simply because it was premature. Now the situation changes completely, of course, when the premature child has very little chance to live, is severly damaged, or the treatment is futile. In those cases, the parents decision is recognized by statute. Any parent who has to deal with those situations should, and does, have my deepest sympathies. Which is why, I think, in some rare cases, the doctors and hospitals are much more likely to let close decisions go to the parents, without involving the authorities.
I am not at all important. I am just a voice in the wildernet. It is the spirit of these truths that is paramount.
I am just sick and tired of bullies and tyrants. Especially those claim moral or religious or even political justification for their tyranny. But that is a different thread.
Your response confirms my expectations. At least make a wild guess. What is the difference is between murdered, killed, and died?
Peace
Only through Liberty
rwjefferson
Right. And in the meantime, we must choose between (1) not allowing people to withdraw the use of their own bodies as life support, and (2) killing fetuses. The first is simply unconscionable in my opinion.
Only because you know he’s dying either way. If you ever discover a way to detach him without causing his death, then the situation changes.
It is if you know there may be someone lurking in that alley who’s going to do it - which, you’ll notice, was what I wrote.
I disagree. Pregnancy is a potential consequence of sex, one that may be made highly unlikely with proper precautions, but is always possible. Just as having Apos attached to you is a potential consequence of walking down an alley where you suspect a mad scientist is hiding.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that unwanted fetuses are not created intentionally.
And just so this doesn’t get twisted out of proportion:
I’d say that if you’re going to put him out of his misery before disconnecting him, you’re obligated to do so as humanely as possible, if you reasonably suspect he’s capable of feeling pain.
Well stated. That is the little sticking point that the pro-lifers blind themselves to.
It’s ALL about choice. What they want is to have choice removed from the picture completely.
And there’s the sticking point. Life of the fetus v. rights of the mother. And no need for a dumbass, irrelevant, and false analogy.
What is the little sticking point? That pro-life advocates want to limit a woman’s choice to choose to terminate a fetus? All kinds of choices are limited: I can’t choose to beat the crap out of you without violating the law, I can’t choose to embezzle funds without breaking the law, and I can’t choose to spit in your food without breaking the law. So, I guess your rhetorical flourish that we don’t want women to have the right to choose to have an abortion is, semanitically, correct. But don’t confuse yourself and think that’s anything but empty rhetoric.
Tell it to the guy who brought it up.
Er, what? You responded to a question clearly directed at an exchange with rwjefferson as if it had been directed at you. It’s one thing to respond to points I’ve made with objections to them. It’s quite another to disjointedly respond to a remark directed at someone else (and only in context given a particular exchange between the two of us) as if I was challenging YOU to answer a question. I didn’t, and it’s downright bizarre and disjointed to act as if I did. It’s as if I complimented rwjefferson on his hairdo, and you jumped in and said “thanks! I cut it myself with a hacksaw!”
So, are you going to discuss this issue rationally, or am I wasting my time with someone grandstands instead of responding, and coyly claims to predict my responses instead of actually presenting substantive grounds of disagreement?
Again: are you saying that someone has the right even to intentionally bring something into being that depends upon them for its life, and then suddenly decide that they don’t want to sustain that being and then kill it? Is that your idea of what “liberty” is?
Are you really saying that an abortion doesn’t kill the fetus?
I, for one, believe they do - assuming we’re still talking about fetuses. If you get pregnant intentionally, but then your circumstances change and having a baby is inappropriate, you have the right to an abortion.
But note that most unwanted pregnancies are not intentional, so your question seems like somewhat of a straw man.
You can if he decides to take of your body without your permission. I hear that clothahumps can be very tenacious. If he were to someday seize on you, you would at the very least, have to beat the crap out of him to make him let go.
Do not limit this right.
Peace
Only through Liberty
rwjefferson
I am really saying that abortion does not always kill the fetus.
Kill may not mean what you think it means.
I am led to believe that you would you interpret “removal of life support” as “killed”.
I believe a more accurate interpretation would be “allowed a natural death”.
Peace
rwj
All other moral arguments aside, the central issue here, as I see it, comes down to one word: CHOICE. We can argue until the cows come home about words like “murder”, “reproductive rights”, “viability” etc., but in the end, the only proper conclusion to any debate on this subject is this: the right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term belongs to one, and ONLY one person–the pregnant woman HERSELF! She is the one who has to come to terms with her own decision, and that responsibility belongs to NO ONE ELSE! As far as the “who speaks for the fetus” argument goes, for better or worse, that right belongs de facto to the mother.That having been said, I have a few questions for the pro-life side: [ul]
[li]Are each of you ready and willing to adopt one of the many unwanted children that will surely result if you get your way? Didn’t think so.[/li][li]Are you willing to pay highrer taxes and medical premiums to care for all the baies born with birth defects, or the ones who end up hospitalized due to the action/inaction of a drug-addicted/insane/just plain resentful parent? Didn’t think so.[/li][li]Or are you just planning a string of Magdalene asylums/orphanages?[/li][/ul] Bottom line: with pro-choice, people have the right to decide; under pro-life, that decision is taken out of the hands of the only one with the right to make it. You in the pro-life faction have the right to be morally outraged; you do NOT have the right to impose that outrage on others to the point of making it the law.
It’s not just about choice. It’s about when life begins. Choice is one value we protect through law and human life is another. The intersection of these two values is at the heart of the question of abortion so it is not just about choice. Personally I am against abortion because lines drawn after conception about when life begins seem highly arbituary. Maybe the line of conception is too, but it seems the most clear one to me based on this is when all the elements neccesary for life to come into being come together. Yet, I’m not for abortion laws because on a pratical level they don’t make sense. There are so many factors that go into the decision to have a baby that it seems a decision that belongs between a woman and her docter. It isn’t pratical or even right for a third party to be involved in that choice. A part of me says that if I truly believe a fetus is a life shouldn’t I do anything I can to protect it? Yet, I think the best way to protect that life is to provide other options for women besides abortion. To provide love and support so they don’t feel trapped with only one choice of abortion just to prevent the child from being in a miserable situation with a mother feeling incapable of providing a good life for herself or the child. I am against abortion, but on a pratical level I don’t think laws are that good of a way to prevent them from happening.
I don’t know if I’m the best person to answer the questions in the last post, especially since I don’t think outlawing abortion is the correct route to go, but I do understand where that side is coming from so I can give my perspective on how I think those questions are seen from that side. If one is morally outraged, that means they think something is wrong. Is something is wrong is it right to do nothing about it? Don’t assume that people wouldn’t be willing to adopt. I’ve heard many people are willing to adopt. If I had the means to support a child I would, which is probably part of the problem many potential mothers face, but there are people willing to adopt out there. The thing is a child being in an orphanage doesn’t mean that they don’t have a value that needs to be protected. I understand the pratical problem of what to do with children that aren’t provided for which is why prevention and options need to be emphasized when it come to the occurence of pregnancies, but to solve the problem through eliminating the child if I see the fetus as a child seems a blatent disregard for the value of that life. Once that life is created it need to be protected and nurtured even if it means paying more in taxes to create programs to help disadvanted kids. Noone would argue that disadvantaged kids should be eliminated to ease the burden on society. I know that the issue of abortion, when life begins, the role of choice, pregnancy issues in themselves isn’t always cut and dry with easy answers/solutions which is why I’m not for laws outlawing abortion, but I I can see where the antiabortion arguement is coming from on a child being born in such circumstances. Programs need to be put in place to help the child and the mother and just the whole situation, but in that process the value of the life of that child still needs to be protected.
Someone who would want to kill a perfectly healthy someone on life support with a good prognosis can be challenged even if they are the legal guardian, especially if the act involves not simply the removal of so-called “life support,” but physically killing them first.
This has to be one of the silliest arguments I’ve ever seen. Should those against the death penalty house inmates?
Yes and no. I’m not particularly interested in pay for other people’s medical care period, but if we do, then paying for other people’s bad choices is an inevitable part of the system. Of course, I’m not against abortion in all circumstances anyway.
My aren’t we presumptive.
Just like I don’t think those that claim to be pro-life really believe their own rhetoric , I don’t think you actually believe this principle. Should we not have laws against murder in general because that’s an imposition of social outrage on something that is a matter between two individuals?
I’d say it’s not just about when life begins, but what kinds of “life” deserve what kinds of protection, and why. Dogs, cows, and chickens are clearly alive, but we don’t give them the same protection we do humans - is that simply because they have different DNA, or because they don’t exhibit the same behaviors as humans, or because some people believe they don’t have souls? Criminals who have been convicted of capital crimes are executed, even though they’re undeniably living humans - doesn’t that mean our rule is already more nuanced than “never end a human life”, and we just disagree on what the exact nuances should be?
The sperm and egg aren’t the only necessary elements - you need an environment, too. A fertilized egg that never implants will not go on to become a baby, and IIRC, only something like 1/3 of all fertilized eggs implant. The rest are just flushed out and no one’s the wiser. This is an important difference because while in most cases, birth control works by preventing the egg from being released, in rare cases, the egg is released but is still prevented from implanting.
You got to be kidding, a right to a decent life?!?! How can this ever be granted to anyone? Who has the power to grant this?