Hard News: Medical Matters
588 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 … 24 Newer→ Last
-
Linger - I appreciate that, an honest and consistent stance. I'm not in favour of it myself -if I'm that far gone, bed baths and someone else can wipe my ass - heavan for the lazy.
-
"OK -so it's my body I can kill myself if I want - right?"
Yes.
As far as *I* am concerned anyway (and naturally, I would have due concern about my duties and responsibilities as a family member, as a friend - but ultimately, it would be my decision to make for me.)
-
Jackie:
If you wish to make people feel guilty about choosing abortion, call it murder. Call it infanticide. Call it whatever you like. But remember, that ultimately, it is not your body. It is not your womb. It is not your call.
No, it is not anyone else's decision. Full responsibility lies with those responsible whether they be the woman, the doctor, the father, the family or the government.
You missed one important factor. Who speaks for the child?
-
Deborah:
Forced pregnancy is no happier a situation than infertility.
What is forced about a pregnancy? Is it not the parent's responsibility to deal with that which they have produced? The choice to terminate, even the thought of it as an option, is an instant sign of a lack of due diligence and responsibility.
As you should be first to point out pregnancy is a privilege, not a right and never a right to kill.
-
Anorak:
Women have been ending unwanted pregnancies for millennia. I don't mean to sound flippant, I'm just stating a fact.
Sometimes their methods worked well; the women didn't die or become infertile.You are being flippant and you are stating a fact. Another fact is that men have been committing rape for a long time. We do not condone something just because people have always done it.
If you want to take away the legal rights of women to choose whether or not they can end a pregnancy safely, you will force your daughters, sisters, friends, coworkers and lovers to risk infection, infertility or death.
That's utter clap-trap. In fact the dangers of having an abortion by even the safest means far outweigh the risk of not. Regardless of risk there is never an excuse to end the life of a baby for the sake of convenience.
How about trusting women to know what is right and best for them and their bodies?
Would you allow men the same freedom? Then we could do away with every law we have for anything....
You may not approve of abortion. You may even think abortionists and their clients are murderers. That is your right.
THANKS! :)
But don't try to say this is an "essential human concern that we all share", because it won't be you hemorrhaging on a motel floor.
You're arguing the consequences. It is not right to say that we continue to commit great evil in order to avoid a difficult situation in the future. It is right to decide what is right and act accordingly. Who knows, perhaps the bleak picture of the future you imagine will not come to pass.
-
Who knows, perhaps the bleak picture of the future you imagine will not come to pass.
Yeesh. Grant, la-la-land is on the line. They're interested in how you got so divorced from reality.
Anyway. I have a question for you: in this utopian/authoritarian future of yours, where the apple-cheeked milkmaids skip merrily and submissively to their antenatal classes for the good of das Vaterland, what should happen to the women who undergo the newly illegal abortions? Do they all get sent to jail for murder? I'm interested in how you think that should work, in practical terms.
-
Do you have no idea of recent social history?
The story around abortion law reform in the 1970s is indeed a fascinating and important one. Right now, it would make a good lead story for a weekend newspaper feature section. Or even The Listener.
-
Who speaks for the [unborn] child?
Anybody can speak for the child. That's free speech for you.
But nevertheless, nobody else gets to decide for the mother.
I don't want to claim that the life of a foetus isn't also worthy of consideration -- but that, too, is up to the mother (at least until the foetus reaches the point of independent viability, when other solutions become possible).As with the cases of suicide and euthanasia, the opinions of (and the emotional effects on) other people may be worth considering, but should not ever be allowed to override the decision of the person whose body and life are involved, if that person is able to make a decision. That's self-determination for you.
(i.e.: A right to free speech doesn't entail any right to be listened to. The right to self-determination is much more important. And a foetus is not (yet) capable of self-determination.) -
... though perhaps that should be, "Anyone can pretend to speak for the child". Anyone under the impression they were actually speaking for an unborn child would either have to have teh mad mind-reading skillz, or else be seriously deluded.
-
Yeesh. Grant, la-la-land is on the line. They're interested in how you got so divorced from reality.
Reality is that abortion ends the life of a person. Reality is that ending abortion will end the state sanctioned termination of human lives. Reality is that we already have people who break the law. Reality is that a good legal system would not cater for the choices people claim as their right to make.
I know this is not reality, but do not pretend that I don't understand that.
Anyway. I have a question for you: in this utopian/authoritarian future of yours, where the apple-cheeked milkmaids skip merrily and submissively to their antenatal classes for the good of das Vaterland, what should happen to the women who undergo the newly illegal abortions? Do they all get sent to jail for murder? I'm interested in how you think that should work, in practical terms.
No.
-
Anybody can speak for the child. That's free speech for you.
THANKS! :)
But nevertheless, nobody else gets to decide for the mother.
I know.
I don't want to claim that the life of a foetus isn't also worthy of consideration -- but that, too, is up to the mother (at least until the foetus reaches the point of independent viability, when other solutions become possible).
There are always other options at every stage of a pregnancy. Abortion - deliberately ending the life of a baby - is never necessary.
As with the cases of suicide and euthanasia, the opinions of (and the emotional effects on) other people may be worth considering, but should not ever be allowed to override the decision of the person whose body and life are involved, if that person is able to make a decision. That's self-determination for you.
The ability to make a decision does not justify the action. The law needs to judge right from wrong, not preference from preference. And as always you ignore the fact that it is someone else's life you are deciding for.
(i.e.: A right to free speech doesn't entail any right to be listened to. The right to self-determination is much more important. And a foetus is not (yet) capable of self-determination.)
What is self determination and how does one test for it? You have invented a definition of person and are willing to act on that definition to the exclusion of the rights of others.
... though perhaps that should be, "Anyone can pretend to speak for the child". Anyone under the impression they were actually speaking for an unborn child would either have to have teh mad mind-reading skillz, or else be seriously deluded.
I'm willing to bet that every scientific test you can imagine will show a baby reacting adversely to the introduction of alien objects into his living space and will do everything he can to avoid being killed. It is enough for me to speak out on the fact that people are being killed. I don't have to pretend that they agree with what I say or that I have got their mind.
-
Do they all get sent to jail for murder?
No.
But... why not? Are you anti-jail-sentences for all murders, or just these particular ones?
-
No.
-
You're awfully loquacious about this issue, Grant. Could you be a little more succinct? ;)
-
No :D
-
I'm willing to bet that every scientific test you can imagine will show a baby reacting adversely to the introduction of alien objects into his living space and will do everything he can to avoid being killed.
What? This is an ability that not even toddlers are noted for, wrt all sorts of lethal dangers. Babies might suck something to find out what it is. A newborn would be lucky to focus on it. I'm not sure what a late term fetus can perceive, but it's not likely to be more. A pre-term fetus on telly the other night seemed fine about a major tumour being removed from its backside.
-
What? This is an ability that not even toddlers are noted for, wrt all sorts of lethal dangers. Babies might suck something to find out what it is. A newborn would be lucky to focus on it. I'm not sure what a late term fetus can perceive, but it's not likely to be more. A pre-term fetus on telly the other night seemed fine about a major tumour being removed from its backside.
I carefully described the situation in which a baby would fight for his life. A toddler not knowing about poison is reasonable, a toddler reacting adversely to a sharp pbject is obvious. It is interesting that you note an acceptance of a procedure designed to help a child. I'll not pretend that the kid knew what was going on, but it is interesting. My simple point was that babies do not take kindly to being assaulted. And the fact that babies are being killed is reason enough for me to voice my opinion with or without their consent.
-
My simple point was that babies do not take kindly to being assaulted
Actually, that's an assertion without evidence (as you yourself acknowledged by prefacing the original claim with "I'm willing to bet...").
people are being killed
[...and again...]
the fact that babies are being killed
But, for at least some stages of fetal development, the description "killing a person" cannot be proven to apply, as "personhood" cannot be definitively established, for reasons we've already discussed. (You don't have to agree with me; and for that matter, the mother doesn't have to agree with me. I merely note that this is an alternative interpretation consistent with the observable data, and leave the choice of interpretation back with the mother.)
What is self determination and how does one test for it? You have invented a definition of person and are willing to act on that definition to the exclusion of the rights of others.
"Self-determination" means the ability to make decisions about your own future. This is a much higher level of "personhood" than the minimum "perception plus memory" definition discussed earlier, and is accordingly to be valued more highly. No-one has ever established that newborns -- let alone foetuses -- are capable of any conscious decision. By contrast, we certainly do know that about the mother!
BTW, the definitions of "personhood" we've been discussing are independent of species. They could also be applied to the ethics of food consumption. Nobody has any ethical qualms about eating cabbage, as we're pretty sure it doesn't have any plans for tomorrow. Most of us aren't that worried about eating lamb or beef, for much the same reason; but if we believe that these animals are capable of self-determination, then that's problematic. Rather more of us are squeamish about eating dogs, horses, whales, or monkeys, largely because there is more evidence that such animals are above the self-determination threshold. Of course, if you're going to go with the minimum definition of "personhood", and apply it consistently, your diet will be that much more restricted. Unless you are a strict vegetarian, you must also be "willing to exclude the rights of others".
-
Actually, that's an assertion without evidence (as you yourself acknowledged by prefacing the original claim with "I'm willing to bet...").
Sure. And it's an assertion I am not willing to test. Though I can guarantee you that every baby will react adversely to being assaulted whether in the womb or not.
But, for at least some stages of fetal development, the description "killing a person" cannot be proven to apply, as "personhood" cannot be definitively established, for reasons we've already discussed. (You don't have to agree with me; and for that matter, the mother doesn't have to agree with me. I merely note that this is an alternative interpretation consistent with the observable data, and leave the choice of interpretation back with the mother.)
Establishing personhood is a simple matter of applying the term as we see fit. I think it is right to apply the rights of a person to babies at conception. I think you agree with me that there is no definitive test for personhood. Do you think that one day there will be? Will we one day have access to a person-o-meter (TM)?
"Self-determination" means the ability to make decisions about your own future. This is a much higher level of "personhood" than the minimum "perception plus memory" definition discussed earlier, and is accordingly to be valued more highly. No-one has ever established that newborns -- let alone foetuses -- are capable of any conscious decision. By contrast, we certainly do know that about the mother!
OK. I understand what you mean by the term. Your declaration of this term is not evidence that it is a correct means by which to judge who is and is not a person. I'm also wondering, as with all the methods you describe, how you avoid the conclusion that some people are more persons than others.
BTW, the definitions of "personhood" we've been discussing are independent of species. They could also be applied to the ethics of food consumption. Nobody has any ethical qualms about eating cabbage, as we're pretty sure it doesn't have any plans for tomorrow. Most of us aren't that worried about eating lamb or beef, for much the same reason; but if we believe that these animals are capable of self-determination, then that's problematic. Rather more of us are squeamish about eating dogs, horses, whales, or monkeys, largely because there is more evidence that such animals are above the self-determination threshold. Of course, if you're going to go with the minimum definition of "personhood", and apply it consistently, your diet will be that much more restricted. Unless you are a strict vegetarian, you must also be "willing to exclude the rights of others".
And, at the risk of being banned, the only response I have to that is, "Yummy, whale." :D
I have to keep reminding myself to be polite (I think I just failed). I want to thank you for the continued levels of maturity you post with. I know I'm not the easiest of guys to communicate with. Thanks :)
-
Oh, nuts... For "the mother" above, please read "the woman concerned". (Even the label "mother" may be read as presupposing a relationship that should not be presupposed by an outside observer.)
-
A criterion is a required condition for some purpose of definition, not a "method" as such (that also needs some agreed test as to whether the condition is present, with some agreed level of certainty as to the conclusion). I've suggested several different criteria by which we could classify organisms as "persons". None of the ones I've suggested are inherently scaleable (though in practice the level of certainty in our measurements or interpretations may seem to add some scale). I make no claims about which of these criteria is "correct" for any given purpose; so to the extent that an organism may pass one criterion test but fail another higher-level test, then, yes, some organisms may be classed as "more like persons" than others. However, since all "people", by definition, must pass the highest criterion that we deem suitable for a given purpose, it is logically impossible to get a result that "some people are more persons than others".
-
Linger - "Rather more of us are squeamish about eating dogs, horses, whales, or monkeys, largely because there is more evidence that such animals are above the self-determination threshold. Of course, if you're going to go with the minimum definition of "personhood", and apply it consistently, your diet will be that much more restricted"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-determination
Linger - you're having fun eh?
Are you offering to charge a horse in court, like a scene from Black Adder; or are you in defacto presenting the arguement for cannibalism?But for the shortage I've no issue with eating whales and am rather keen to chomp on cheval.
-
But for the shortage I've no issue with eating whales and am rather keen to chomp on cheval.
I want a dolphin burger!
-
Well, at some points in some cultures, personhood has been applied to [selected] animals; and even today, "legal person" is not the same as "human person" (e.g. it also includes corporations). I'm not sure what criterion the law actually uses for "person"; but if it were to use "capacity for self-determination", then ... if you've got compelling proof that a horse has first planned and then carried out the killing of an individual that the law recognises as a person, then yep, I'd be interested in seeing the resulting trial for premeditated murder. But without the proof of planning, it would be difficult to establish the personhood of the horse, without which the law could not apply. Which I suppose would mean that a horse could in effect get away with manslaughter, or an unpremeditated murder. Hmm. Remind me to keep away from horses.
-
as to "having fun" -- not really, this is taking far too much concentration. This latest turn is interesting though; I hadn't previously considered whether my own positions about many different issues might actually be governed by a consistently applied set of principles. I'd kind of assumed I'd just made up my mind as I went along.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.