When is it a human being?

And as real life stated, the particular social need to which he is referring is law.

0 Replies

The problem in the predicate, "it becomes a human when . . ." arises from the vagueness of the term "human." In logic these problems are referred to as Sorites Paradoxes.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

And as real life stated, the particular social need to which he is referring is law.

Correct.

If you're going to have ANY law in reference to abortion (pro or con), then you must draw a line and set a date as to when the being in question is or is not entitled to protection of life under said law.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

What makes an unborn child at 23 weeks, 6 1/2 days NOT human while one at 24 weeks IS human?

The law does, but this is all sort of backwards.

In some countries they've stopped giving life support to children born prematurely if they are born before a set time in the pregnancy. The reason is that studies have shown that in this category of children who survive with technical aid, one in ten escapes severe brain injury.
So they let the children die with their new families.

Fresco

Poor bus drivers. But I didn't find any contradictions between our posts. I agree on your point about line drawing.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

real life wrote:
What makes an unborn child at 23 weeks, 6 1/2 days NOT human while one at 24 weeks IS human?

The law does, but this is all sort of backwards.

In some countries they've stopped giving life support to children born prematurely if they are born before a set time in the pregnancy. The reason is that studies have shown that in this category of children who survive with technical aid, one in ten escapes severe brain injury.
So they let the children die with their new families.

Fresco

Poor bus drivers. But I didn't find any contradictions between our posts. I agree on your point about line drawing.

So if you saw a burning building with 100 people inside, and you knew that you could 'only' save 10, would you say "Well, forget it if the other 90 are going to die anyway. Why should I bother with 10?"

0 Replies

No. I'd rescue the least injured and most able first, in the hopes that they might rescue others. Cool

After the first one we'd be two people who could rescue nine.
The third, three to rescue seven each and so on.

Do you think we'd get them all out in time? :wink:

0 Replies

My point is that I consider it barbaric for 'doctors' to allow preemies to die on the basis that some (or even many) of them may have limitations or handicaps.

Good medicine looks for cures, not ways to kill the handicapped so that a cure is unnecessary.

I find it interesting that many who support embryonic stem cell research (cloning) on the basis that it 'will provide cures for many diseases and genetic defects', also seem to be of the opinion that if a child is to be born that has one of these diseases or defects then he ought to be aborted.

What is the point of finding the cure, if you are going to kill the patient before he receives it?

0 Replies

Premies are treated with the same standard of care as an adult patient. There is an assessment of the physical status of any patient to determine the level of care required for treatment. For each newborn the assessment is called an 'apgar score'. A system of evaluating a newborn's physical condition by assigning a value (0, 1, or 2) to each of five criteria: heart rate, respiratory effort, muscle tone, response to stimuli, and skin color. Any failing score is addressed appropriately.

Premies are not just tossed in the dumpster.

0 Replies

If a doctor's professional opinion is that his intervention will bring more harm than good, I think he is doing the right thing in not taking part.

Seems to me that we often consider such things in terms of life or death. We rarely contemplate quality of life. Can we say that absolutely all states of life are better than death?

From some perspectives there is something morbid about keeping something that is unable to do more than blink with the eyes if you don't even know for sure if there is coherent consciousness inside.

Like one of the children in a tv program I saw on the issue. His parents had never had any confirmation that he was more aware than a goldfish. The boy couldn't do anything by himself. Is it right to nourish such existence?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

If a doctor's professional opinion is that his intervention will bring more harm than good, I think he is doing the right thing in not taking part.

Seems to me that we often consider such things in terms of life or death. We rarely contemplate quality of life. Can we say that absolutely all states of life are better than death?

From some perspectives there is something morbid about keeping something that is unable to do more than blink with the eyes if you don't even know for sure if there is coherent consciousness inside.

Like one of the children in a tv program I saw on the issue. His parents had never had any confirmation that he was more aware than a goldfish. The boy couldn't do anything by himself. Is it right to nourish such existence?

Are all your medical opinions based on tv programs you have seen?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

If a doctor's professional opinion is that his intervention will bring more harm than good, I think he is doing the right thing in not taking part.

Seems to me that we often consider such things in terms of life or death. We rarely contemplate quality of life. Can we say that absolutely all states of life are better than death?

From some perspectives there is something morbid about keeping something that is unable to do more than blink with the eyes if you don't even know for sure if there is coherent consciousness inside.

Like one of the children in a tv program I saw on the issue. His parents had never had any confirmation that he was more aware than a goldfish. The boy couldn't do anything by himself. Is it right to nourish such existence?

Do you think allowing a preemie to die and making no attempt to save it is doing 'less harm' ?

What would be 'more harmful' than death?

0 Replies

real life,

It is glaringly obvious that "more harm" can be defined in terms of detrimental impact on the established lives of existing parents and/or children.

Here's a challenge Real Life.....would you be willing to adopt the handicapped child in order to rescind the abortion by others?

0 Replies

The question lies not on how the society or the environment would react to such situations, the fact that the subject is most likely to become human makes the decision to accept it or not harder. Your question is one sided in the sense that in real life it is not that too easy to make the situation exist...

0 Replies

A life in mental agony might be 'more harm' than death. In a person you are unable to establish even a blink of communication with, you cannot determine if this person has coherency or is his perception of reality is good.

Death might be considered 'less harm' than reducing the life quality of a whole family.

As I see it, maintaining the life of someone who is 100 percent dependant on help to survive and will be so forever is unethical, simply because as a parent you cannot guarantee that you will be there forever.

Sometimes we commit crimes against those we love simply because we love them...

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

A life in mental agony might be 'more harm' than death. In a person you are unable to establish even a blink of communication with, you cannot determine if this person has coherency or is his perception of reality is good.

Death might be considered 'less harm' than reducing the life quality of a whole family.

As I see it, maintaining the life of someone who is 100 percent dependant on help to survive and will be so forever is unethical, simply because as a parent you cannot guarantee that you will be there forever.

Sometimes we commit crimes against those we love simply because we love them...

So any baby that is incapable right after birth, of saying 'whoa what the hell was that?' or 'why did you smack me on my a$$?' should hit the dumpster?
I think that before you attack the medical profession you should learn a little bit about medicine. IMHO

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

real life,

It is glaringly obvious that "more harm" can be defined in terms of detrimental impact on the established lives of existing parents and/or children.

If a parent feels he is being 'harmed' by having a sick or handicapped child, he can walk away. Put the child up for adoption.

The solution to sickness and handicaps is not to kill all the sick and handicapped.

fresco wrote:

Here's a challenge Real Life.....would you be willing to adopt the handicapped child in order to rescind the abortion by others?

Whether I or another adopt them, the solution is not to kill them.

Making the solution dependent on me ( ' well see here , there are 3,000,000 handicapped children and Real Life has refused to adopt all of them, so the problem still exists because Real Life is a hypocrite and won't fix it. ' ) is a dodge of the issue.

The solution is not to kill the sick. Got it?

0 Replies

real life,

You are avoiding the challenge ! I'm giving you the chance of preventing one particular abortion by your offer of adoption. Instead of making universal emotive statements. I am asking you to think of yourself making a decision which will affect the rest of your life and those of your immediate family.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

If a parent feels he is being 'harmed' by having a sick or handicapped child, he can walk away. Put the child up for adoption.

Ok. But who would adopt a child who is 90 percent handicapped and has no chance of ever getting better?

Gelisgesti wrote:

So any baby that is incapable right after birth, of saying 'whoa what the hell was that?' or 'why did you smack me on my a$$?' should hit the dumpster?

That's just silly. But what about a child that can never get off respirator? Or a half incubated creature that is severly damaged by premature birth?

But let me ask a simpler question. If you found a little bird with no wings and no legs, lying in the grass, would you take home it and try to save it's life?

0 Replies

You have left me speechless ....
Sounds like the bird ran into someone that only liked drum sticks and wings.
Wasn't a 'foo' bird was it?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Terry wrote:
If a parent feels he is being 'harmed' by having a sick or handicapped child, he can walk away. Put the child up for adoption.

Ok. But who would adopt a child who is 90 percent handicapped and has no chance of ever getting better?

How do you know there is no chance of him getting better? Lots of things that were 'impossible' a few years ago, are routine now.

And even if he would remain handicapped, is killing him a solution? Is our goal a master race of perfectly healthy folks only?

What degree of sickness or limitation pushes one over the line to 'disposable' ?

Cyracuz wrote:

Gelisgesti wrote:
So any baby that is incapable right after birth, of saying 'whoa what the hell was that?' or 'why did you smack me on my a$$?' should hit the dumpster?

That's just silly. But what about a child that can never get off respirator? Or a half incubated creature that is severly damaged by premature birth?

Again , same question as above. How do you know he will never be off the respirator? And even if this is so, is killing him a solution?

Cyracuz wrote:

But let me ask a simpler question. If you found a little bird with no wings and no legs, lying in the grass, would you take home it and try to save it's life?

Do you value a human life the same as a bird's life?

0 Replies

When is it a human being?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know