When is it a human being?

real life wrote:

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

You don't. (Unless you mean "innocent" life, of course.)

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

real life wrote:
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 oothers?

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?

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.

Sorry, your 'challenge' is bogus.

Whether I, or any particular person, is willing or able to adopt a handicapped person does not make killing the handicapped the right thing to do.

I challenge you to address the issue.

You jumped in to defend killing the handicapped on the basis that they were 'harming' their families , presumably by burdening them with debt and causing them emotional distress.

Exactly what degree of sickness or limitation makes a person too inconvenient to keep around?

Have you got a list of illnesses and handicaps that should no longer be tolerated?

Should we shut down any programs or organizations that are looking for cures for these particular illnesses and handicaps , as a way of encouraging both the afflicted and their families to 'do the right thing ' and kill them off?

0 Replies

real life,

The point about what is bogus is that there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" in drawing the line. The "problem" indicates a conflict of social decisions we call a "moral dilemma" which religionists avoid (as you did) by reverting to synthetic "divine authority" for an absolute ruling.

Similar dilemmas should confront any who find themselves conscripted to kill for "their country" but the evidence clearly indicates that "circumstance rules". The thoughtful provision of a comfort blanket in the form of "the army chaplain" oils the wheels for wheels for waiverer.

0 Replies

Real life, don't fall for the straw man ... Wink

1. straw man arguement
20 up, 9 down

A locical fallacy in which the arguementative point is made into a caracature of it's original point. Extremely effective because it's not based on facts, but lies and assumptions. The burden of proof then lies in the defense, not the offense. Especially effective when the defense isn't allowed to offer objection. Popularized by right wing talk radio hosts Rush and Hannity.

Step one: Build the straw man. Ignore facts and make outlandish lies/slander. Redefine the facts. "liberals want to take your guns away and turn the U.S. over to the U.N."

Step 2: Knock down the straw man. "That flies in the face of everything we Americans believe in."

Step 3: Connect step 2 to step 1. "Only a communist would think of something like that."

Step 4: "Negate" your opponant by opposing the conclusion in step 3. "I hate those liberal communists. If they think us right-wingers will sit quietly while they destroy the country the're dead wrong."

Rush and Hannity can't argue the facts, so they have to make up the "evil liberal agenda" and then appear patriotic by opposing it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

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

No one is talking about killing anyone. There is a big difference between ending someone's life and not interfearing when life is about to end.

We are not gods with the power over life and death, no matter how much some would like to believe so.

And the thing about the bird was to highlight a principle. The very same we are discussing. It raises the question of why we are doing these things.
A friend of mine had a hamster. One day the animal fell down the stairs and broke it's back in three places.
He took it to the vet.
The vet said that the creature was done for, and that he would give it a shot so it would fall asleep for good.
My friend feaked. No one was going to kill his hamster.
So he took it home and put it in it's cage, where it lay twitching and vomiting. He tried to force some water down it's throat. He wanted the animal to be all right.
In the morning, the hamster was stiff and cold.

It is easy to see the amount of suffering my friend's love of the hamster brought to the poor animal. Selfish love.

Not many people realize the obvious fact that medicine can be the cause of as much misery and suffering as it cures.

real life, as I see it, you are the one dodging questions here.

0 Replies

Cyracuz

Well said. It is not unusual for handicapped people to express the wish "not to have been born", especially when their primary carers are no longer able to fulfil their former role. those who argue for "rights" of the unborn rarely take this into account.

0 Replies

Thanks fresco.

On the tv program I mentioned, where the boy appeared who was 90 percent deficient, his mother was there also. She didn't have a happy story to tell. Depressions, thoughts of suicide, of murder, of any way to be rid of the burden without the terrible conscience that is already hurting just for thinking these thoughts.

real life

Another question for you, and for anyone interested.

A hypothetical scenario.
You are the one to make the decision. Two twins are born prematurely. Without your help both will die.
But you don't have enough recourses to nurture both to full health. You can nurture one to full heath, or both enough to survive. But if you save both they will become handicapped for sure.

What would you do?

For myself, I'd try to determine which of the twins were stronger and save that one. The choice not to interfere in the other child's fate would be a hard one, but not a case of moral neglect under the set circumstances.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

real life wrote:
The solution is not to kill the sick. Got it?

No one is talking about killing anyone. There is a big difference between ending someone's life and not interfearing when life is about to end.

We are not gods with the power over life and death, no matter how much some would like to believe so.

And the thing about the bird was to highlight a principle. The very same we are discussing. It raises the question of why we are doing these things.
A friend of mine had a hamster. One day the animal fell down the stairs and broke it's back in three places.
He took it to the vet.
The vet said that the creature was done for, and that he would give it a shot so it would fall asleep for good.
My friend feaked. No one was going to kill his hamster.
So he took it home and put it in it's cage, where it lay twitching and vomiting. He tried to force some water down it's throat. He wanted the animal to be all right.
In the morning, the hamster was stiff and cold.

It is easy to see the amount of suffering my friend's love of the hamster brought to the poor animal. Selfish love.

Not many people realize the obvious fact that medicine can be the cause of as much misery and suffering as it cures.

real life, as I see it, you are the one dodging questions here.

Do you value a human life the same as a hamster?

You spoke earlier of doctor's who let preemies of a certain age die because otherwise SOME of them would be handicapped.

Do you think it's right to let all of them die on the basis that some will be handicapped?

0 Replies

When nine children out of ten suffer severe brain damage as a result of the traumas of premature birth and the fact that they are not fully incubated, I'd say that it is a pretty sound decision to not give life support, particularly since there's no chance of knowing beforehand which one child may be ok.

Bear in mind please that the nature of the brain damage is such that the children will be as helpless as infants all of their lives. They will need constant care, and extensive medical assistance.

So I'd answer yes to your question. When the odds are such as they are, I'd say that it is right not to intervene in the deaths of these embryo/infant humans.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

When nine children out of ten suffer severe brain damage as a result of the traumas of premature birth and the fact that they are not fully incubated, I'd say that it is a pretty sound decision to not give life support, particularly since there's no chance of knowing beforehand which one child may be ok.

Bear in mind please that the nature of the brain damage is such that the children will be as helpless as infants all of their lives. They will need constant care, and extensive medical assistance.

So I'd answer yes to your question. When the odds are such as they are, I'd say that it is right not to intervene in the deaths of these embryo/infant humans.

hi Cyracuz,

I appreciate your reply.

So since nine will (or may) become severely handicapped, letting all ten die is the solution?

Why does the tenth (if given life support) fare better?

Any chance that could increase to two (or three, or four.....) out of ten if more medical advances become available?

Will these advances be developed if we routinely let these children die without any effort to help them?

0 Replies

If 99 out of 100 criminals to be executed are guilty, should we kill all 100?

Forgive the topic skew....but it's relevant to the big picture.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

If 99 out of 100 criminals to be executed are guilty, should we kill all 100?

Forgive the topic skew....but it's relevant to the big picture.

If you give these preemies the same due process, numerous appeals, right to legal representation, etc that the convicted criminal has, then how long do you think they'd be alive?

At least they'd have to be kept alive by the court while their case was being decided, wouldn't they?

The average stay on Death Row is well over a decade, is it not?

So, even if you can't seem to tell the difference between the innocent and those found guilty (by a jury of their peers after having had opportunity to present evidence in their own defense), then still you would have to treat them the same.

That would mean giving them medical care and years of appeals and due process. That would at least keep them alive and they would be past the point where you were going to pull the plug on them.

So, I don't mind the topic skew. I'll give you enough rope anytime.

0 Replies

APGAR

In case anyone missed the earlier.
They don't just kill babys.

0 Replies

real life

There are of course sincere efforts being made to improve the techniques and proceedures so that a higher percentage of the children will have a chance at a good life. But as it stands today, with the limits of our medical advances are inadequate.

I do not know enough about this to say anything about causes or any remedies that might help, but I am sure it is being researched.

And in the meantime, professionals have made the decision not to give life support to those who are born before the 26th week. (I think that was the number). But each individual case is treated specifically. A comitee of doctors and other professionals get together and discuss the chances of each child and the best course of action.

These decisions are never taken lightly.

Eorl

No, we shouldn't kill all 100. But neither should we let all 100 live if they were condemmed to die by the courts.

Not that I am a supporter of the death penalty.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

real life

There are of course sincere efforts being made to improve the techniques and proceedures so that a higher percentage of the children will have a chance at a good life. But as it stands today, with the limits of our medical advances are inadequate.

I do not know enough about this to say anything about causes or any remedies that might help, but I am sure it is being researched.

And in the meantime, professionals have made the decision not to give life support to those who are born before the 26th week. (I think that was the number). But each individual case is treated specifically. A comitee of doctors and other professionals get together and discuss the chances of each child and the best course of action.

These decisions are never taken lightly.

Eorl

No, we shouldn't kill all 100. But neither should we let all 100 live if they were condemmed to die by the courts.

Not that I am a supporter of the death penalty.

I cannot believe that anyone would support withholding treatment from a group of persons on the basis that SOME of them wouldn't survive even if you treated them.

Hello?

So we just let the others, who would have survived, go ahead and die as well?

Shocked

0 Replies

real life,

The irony is that in "real life" ( Smile

) treatment is "with-held" on a daily basis in hospitals on a balance of social, psychological and economic factors for seriously ill patients of all ages. For example, badly-burned children are often not given antibiotics if primary carers have died or thought not to be able to cope with the aftermath of a disfigured or brain damaged child. The practical concern is quality of life for all, not life per se for one. Such practicalities inevitably form part of any decision making process about "appropriate treatment".

0 Replies

It is also important to remember the consequences of actions, even when the actins in question are as good natured as this.

To save a life is in a way only half the job. Nothing humane about rescuing someone from drowning only to leave them for the beasts, for instance.

There is responsibility involved in saving lives.

I may be mistaken, but I think that in some cultures on earth it was said that if you save a life, you are from that moment responsible for it, and also responsible for any action of the one you save.

Too bad I cannot recall the time and place for this culture, to lend the idea some weight. Though I hope you all can see the reasoning behind such a notion.

0 Replies

When is it a human being?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know