Well, one strong difference between that scenario and an abortion scenario is that the guy in the coma isn’t violating some woman’s bodily integrity and autonomy.
There’s no reason we want to end his life; he isn’t harming anyone.
So: no comparison.
You didn’t ask me, but for what it’s worth: I’m opposed to medical interventions where the main and intended purpose is to inhibit implantation. I don’t opposer ducal interventions which have some other intended effect, and inhibiting implantation is a rare and unintended side effect. I think those situations are covered by the double effect principle.
The morning after pill, for example, works primarily by inhibiting fertilization. inhibiting implantation may rarely happen (there is no proof that it does) but it isn’t what the pill is designed to do. so, not an abortifacient, and morally OK.
But if you did end it, since he has “no sentience, consciousness, awareness or intelligence”, it should be that big a deal, right?
What exactly are you getting at here? Do you seriously imagine that, because I favor abortion rights, I also must necessarily favor killing guys in comas?
I don’t. There is no inconsistency here. You’re fishing, and you’re wasting everyone’s time.
I don’t agree with you. Get over it already. You can’t win this game by Socratic methods.
(Sheesh. What does he imagine? I’m going to break down weeping? Oh, my, oh, my I never realized how my position is logically inconsistent! The scales have fallen from my eyes! Oh, Lord, rapture me now, for I am pro-life! What the fuck? That only happens in Jack Chick comic books!)
Just because you say there isn’t, doesn’t mean there isn’t.
If you stomp your foot, it’s even more emphatic.
Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? Because I can say exactly the same to you: “Just because you say there is, doesn’t mean there is.”
You see no difference; I do. You think you can accomplish something by chopping logic; I don’t.
Are you able to apply the Golden Rule here? Are you able to comprehend that your opinions are of no more weight to me than mine are to you?
The impasse is absolute. I honestly can’t see any possible purpose to this non-conversation.
Dude, why you gotta be that way ? Can’t you just let him trot out the same tired shit for the fourteenth time and finally be convinced ? You’re harshing his righteous buzz, man. He’s going to convince you and the rest of the board eventually. All he has to do is restate the same things until everybody caves.
Which should happen any minute now.
No one is killing that person because he has all and had all the things to prove he was a person. Some pro- birth people have children they don’t want because of guilt put on them, then abuse them after they are born, and some places (like in Africa) the people have 2 or more children dying of malnutrition and the so called pro-life people don’t seem to mind if the born child dies a slow death! When the so called pro-life people sacrifice to care for an unwanted or a family that can’t support the children of those parents then they can talk of being Pro-life
I would ask you to show your choice:If you are in a lab room with a dozen or so frozen embryos and your 8 year old child or best friend was with you, the lab caught on fire, you can either save the unconscious (Born person) or the embryos, which would you choose? Remembering there are (in your opinion) a dozen or so children in a container. Would you grab the container or the already born?
Frozen embryos are not kids. An implanted one is.
I’d think the Doctor was a quack. Someone has to feed that person, otherwise there’s no way a guy in a coma is gonna live several months without someone doing something.
Would it be legal to stop all support for a coma patient in the US or would current law require the patient’s funds to be drained prior to allowing support to end? If the law requires support to be maintained, once the patient’s funds are exhausted is the hospital still required to maintain support on their own dime?
Living in civilization requires people to abide by the compromise that while they may be able to always comply with their personal ethics, they cannot always impose those ethics on others.
So why not investigate every miscarriage as “potential homicide.” Maybe the mother had a drink of alcohol or coffee, or “thought bad thoughts.”
Pre-Roe v. Wade, any doctor treating an emergency room patient for “suspected miscarriage” had to find some fetal tissue or they were required by law to turn the patient over to the police for questioning about a “suspected induced abortion.”
I suggest all “pro-life” people read Choice by Dan Sloan, the story of an emergency room doctor who decided to do then illegal abortions after seeing some results of illegal abortions in emergency rooms.
Could I see a cite for this?
Regards,
Shodan
Because we have the presumption of innocence in this country, and in the absence if any crime having been committed, I’m not going to assume there was one.
Regarding illegal abortions, I have zero interest in ensuring that criminals can commit their crimes safely. I have less than zero interest in ensuring same when the crime involves killing a person.
I hear this a lot, and I’m baffled what you folks thinks this proves .
People choose between saving one person or the other , in situations like this, all the time. I would probably choose saving the life of a 13-year old over a 73- year old, for example, and I’d probably choose to save the life of a parent with young children over a childless person. that doesn’t mean that the elderly and childless are not persons, nor does it mean that we can kill them when they become inconvenient.
I’ve heard this argument as well and do not see its relevance. We are all responsible for our own children. If we are too poor to care for them, then there are various charities and government assistance programs.
If we start from the presumption that an unborn child is a “person” (which is the GQ answer to the thread title: right or wrong, pro-life people believe that abortion is simply the taking of an innocent human life) then it matters not if you are personally willing to care for the individual I’d like to kill. If I tell you that I want to kill my ex-wife and you object, is it a valid rebuttal to say that if you don’t want me to kill her then you need to pay my child support and alimony?
I fail to see why I should have to take the obligation of caring for another individual’s child just because I object to killing it.
Thanks, so you know it isn’t yet a child. It is the same if still in a woman’s womb. Going into a womb doesn’t make it a child until it becomes one as a whole person…Big difference!
Of course and so you realize a born person has more rights than a clump of cells, and the Law does protect it once it becomes a child. Just as there is a difference in stealing a fertile chicken egg and a chicken, or a bushel of apple blossoms than a bushel of apples. It is the same with a woman she has a right to self defense, and only she and her doctor know what is best for the mother. She has the right to life and her other children has a right over a fetus ,embryo, or a clump of cells.