V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
I too agree with Ronald.
You might not like the Canadian law on this subject, and neither do I, but at least it is consistant.
- Status
C
catharina
Guest
In your opinion, that is. Believe it or not, there are plenty of parents who would never kill their children - even to save their own lives. I grew up with a friend who became a brilliant lawyer in adulthood, a husband and a father too. When his son turned 19 yrs old, the son was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic and in a totally unprovoked moment, he attacked and killed his father with a butcher knife in the family’s front yard. Not only did his father not attempt to kill his son in “self protection” but as he lay dying, he pleaded with the paramedics to “tell everybody” that the son was schizophrenic and needed the very best and most sensitive legal advocates when he was tried. That’s fatherhood of a totally sacrificial nature.
No matter how nuanced you might make your case for “self-defense,” parents are bound by every moral law to protect the lives of their children.
C
catharina
Guest
Are you saying then that you prefer the consistency of bad law to the inconsistency of bad law tempered by good law? Please. Is your exercise of logic in a state of total collapse?
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
The point I was making in the self defence case was that we are talking here of a non viable foetus, else it could be delivered early, thus saving both.
Thus, if the pregnance kills the mother, it will also kill the foetus.
Thus prolonging the lethal pregnancy is a vanity.
If there is a chance that the pregnancy can be prolonged safely to the point that the foetus is viable, then that again is another story.
It is in the second case only that I find abortion defencible.
C
catharina
Guest
I’m well aware of the point you were making.
You seem to be intent on remaining unaware of the point I’m making.
Believe it or not, there are very seldom such certainties in medicine. The biggest one in my experience has been “abort the child so we can successfully treat your cancer.” Sounds true; it isn’t. There is no way to determine if cancer will be successfully defeated or not, with treatment or without treatement. Incidentally, pregnancies cannot be “lethal” - they can only be complicated, ordinary or life-threatening. IMO you’ve been sold a bill of goods that is the first step on a very slippery slope.
(Also, incidentally, why do you use the British spelling for fetus and defense? Are you British? Canadian? an Islander?)
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
I do not know of the medical traditions in your country, but here, if the practitioner is questioned carefully, the full risks and possibilities will be explained.
Yes miracles do sometimes occur, but where the prognosis is hopeless, it would be not only foolish, but irresponsible to continue the pregnancy, if there was no real hope of a successfull delivery of a viable infant.
For not only will the mother be lost, and all her future children, but all her existing children will be made motherless for no real purpose, except vanity.
BTW, ectopic pregnancies are quite common, and come under this heading.
I have ammended my profile to be more descriptive.
C
catharina
Guest
Latest numbers available for western populations (Britain, and the USA where I live) call ectopic pregnancies a 2% occurance of all pregnancies.
That doesn’t seem “quite common” to me. In addition, most ectopic pregnancies resolve themselves through tubal rupture and immediate fetal death with appropriate emergency treatment that does not involve maternal death. Your stance that allowing such is ‘a vanity, foolish and irresponsible’ is quite definitely your chosen stance.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
May I just add the Catholic Church does teach the principle of double effect.
This being said, the Church views the mother, as well as the child in utero, both as patients and both deserving of life. If the child dies as an unintentional result of the medical treatment the mother received a direct abortion did not occur.
I respectfully suggest if either ectopic pregnancies or the principle of double effect is to be pursued in more depth opening a new thread might invite more people into the discussion. As it is, these important issues will be lost in the definition of the person thread. :twocents:
Pope Pius XII, The Attempt on Innocent Human Life, Nov. 26, 1951, in The Human Body, Papal Teachings, pg. 182
This being said, the Church views the mother, as well as the child in utero, both as patients and both deserving of life. If the child dies as an unintentional result of the medical treatment the mother received a direct abortion did not occur.
I respectfully suggest if either ectopic pregnancies or the principle of double effect is to be pursued in more depth opening a new thread might invite more people into the discussion. As it is, these important issues will be lost in the definition of the person thread. :twocents:
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Hi Rosalinda,
It seems again that we are essentially on the same wavelength, it’s just that our ways of looking at things are different.
You want to change the status of the human being by calling it a person, I just want to protect the human being, whether it be zygote, early embryo, individual, conscious person, or baby, due for delivery.
To me it matters not what you call the entity, it is human life, and is not to be wantonly destroyed.
Neither matters it to me, how this entity came into being: every embryo has the right to come to term.
If we remove the emotional baggage from the status as person, then we can define that status in a way which is accepted by both science and philosophy.
I have set what I consider logical boundaries, I do not consider that making these boundaries unmeaningful is helpful.
Thus an individual is an indivisible human being, which cannot fission into identical polytuplets.
A person is an individual who is beginning to exhibit conciousness.
I consider these definitions to be reasonable and logical.
The boundaries between these definitions are not sharp and distinct, but imprecise and fuzzy, and there are thus times when the status is uncertain.
As I said, I do not consider it needful to describe a zygote as a person to allocate to it the absolute right to life.
It seems to me that the point of this thread sees things differently.
C
catharina
Guest
Yet you do not allocate an absolute right to life for the unborn. You relegate it to secondary status based on the healthcare needs of the mother. In fact this was the first ruling in the USA allowing for abortion and included evry aspect of the maternal needs, including peace of mind (that is, a right to not be inconvenienced).
R
Rosalinda
Guest
Yes, Voco Pro Tatiano, at times we do seem to be on the same wavelength. The search for goodness, beauty and truth is innate in people and if we are both honestly in pursuit of these three transcendentals we should eventually come to understand one another though we may never agree with one another. 
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Hi Catharina,
I thought that I had.
Everyone has the right of self defence.
It is lawful, even to shoot a policeman, if he will not accept your surrender, and keeps firing at you, while you so attempt.
That might of course be a difficult defence, but, at least in UK, it is valid.
I was allowing termination, I do not call it abortion, because in abortion, the intent is to destroy the infant/foetus.
I set conditions that every effort should be made to save the infant/foetus alive, and that the procedure must only be to save the mother from clear and present mortal danger, which in any case would also endanger the infant/foetus.
I notice that the Church seems to defend termination which is not the primary intent, that is, it is secondary to saving the life of the mother.
I think I set very tight, and reasonable rules.
I think actually, these rules are not greatly at difference with those of Mother Church.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
[sign] I just want to protect the human being, whether it be zygote, early embryo, individual, conscious person, or baby, due for delivery.
To me it matters not what you call the entity, it is human life, and is not to be wantonly destroyed.[/sign]
Voco you may sincerely wish to protect human life but your philosophy of life will not achieve your ends. Note how carefully you qualified person with the adjective “conscious”. Your pro-life ethics are not consistent because you have abrogated to yourself the power to judge who qualifies as a person or a human being. One has only to read your earlier comments (beginning with post 13) on patients suffering with Alzheimer’s to realize how afraid you are of anyone who has lost the use of their full mental faculties.
I offer you this lecture, by Leon Kass, M.D. Maybe it will help you realize what a blind alley you are on.
To me it matters not what you call the entity, it is human life, and is not to be wantonly destroyed.[/sign]
Voco you may sincerely wish to protect human life but your philosophy of life will not achieve your ends. Note how carefully you qualified person with the adjective “conscious”. Your pro-life ethics are not consistent because you have abrogated to yourself the power to judge who qualifies as a person or a human being. One has only to read your earlier comments (beginning with post 13) on patients suffering with Alzheimer’s to realize how afraid you are of anyone who has lost the use of their full mental faculties.
I offer you this lecture, by Leon Kass, M.D. Maybe it will help you realize what a blind alley you are on.
manhattan-institute.org/html/wl2007.htm
C
catharina
Guest
From this morning’s Chicago Tribune:
"Rights for embryos proposed
Abortion foes push state initiatives to bestow 'personhood’
By Judith Graham and Judy Peres | Tribune staff reporters
8:14 AM CST, December 3, 2007
DENVER - Opening a new front in their assault on abortion, activists in half a dozen states are preparing ballot referendums that would grant “personhood” and constitutional rights to embryos from the moment of conception.
The drive is under way in Colorado, where activists have begun gathering signatures for an initiative, and Georgia, where the legislature will take up the issue when it reconvenes in January. Abortion opponents in Montana, Oregon, Mississippi and Michigan are among those considering similar measures.
The new strategy takes an idea that has been central to the pro-life movement – that human life begins when an egg is fertilized – and makes it the centerpiece of state efforts to overturn women’s legal right to an abortion. If the embryo is declared a person under a state’s constitution, the reasoning goes, the termination of its existence must be considered murder.
… ."
"Rights for embryos proposed
Abortion foes push state initiatives to bestow 'personhood’
By Judith Graham and Judy Peres | Tribune staff reporters
8:14 AM CST, December 3, 2007
DENVER - Opening a new front in their assault on abortion, activists in half a dozen states are preparing ballot referendums that would grant “personhood” and constitutional rights to embryos from the moment of conception.
The drive is under way in Colorado, where activists have begun gathering signatures for an initiative, and Georgia, where the legislature will take up the issue when it reconvenes in January. Abortion opponents in Montana, Oregon, Mississippi and Michigan are among those considering similar measures.
The new strategy takes an idea that has been central to the pro-life movement – that human life begins when an egg is fertilized – and makes it the centerpiece of state efforts to overturn women’s legal right to an abortion. If the embryo is declared a person under a state’s constitution, the reasoning goes, the termination of its existence must be considered murder.
… ."
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Yes, I Arrogated to my self, to set boundaries, but I also plainly stated that the boundaries are, in this context, utterly unimportant.
Actually, I tend to see the forest, where others can only see trees.
We all accept, I hope, that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
BTW,
My mother, G_d keep her, died of Alzheimers.
My mother in law G_d help her, is suffering therefrom.
I fear not people with Alzheimers, I dread what Alzheimers can do to a person.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
Voco Pro Tatiano,
Thank you for your response and for sharing with us your personal experiences which have contributed to your perspective on personhood or non-personhood. My condolences for the suffering of your family past and present.
Thank you for your response and for sharing with us your personal experiences which have contributed to your perspective on personhood or non-personhood. My condolences for the suffering of your family past and present.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Thankyou for your condolences, I will treasure your friendship.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
I beg to differ again with you but boundaries are important. If we deny the status of personhood to human beings at the beginning of their lives based on selective and arbitrary notions of personality, consciousness and the like we will also apply the same norms of depersonalization and dehumanization at the end of life. Indeed this is already happening with the advent of active euthanasia.
VPT said:
[sign]Yes, I Arrogated to my self, to set boundaries, but I also plainly stated that the boundaries are, in this context, utterly unimportant.[/sign]
VPT said:
[sign]The boundaries between these definitions are not sharp and distinct, but imprecise and fuzzy, and there are thus times when the status is uncertain.[/sign]
Thank you for the correction BTW.
Your boundaries may seem clearly delineated in your mind but you seemingly contradict yourself. Be that as it may, I rephrase the question, “***Would a comatose patient, an anecelphalic baby or someone in the late stages of Alzheimer’s fall within your boundaries of a living human being worthy of the moral status of personhood?” ***
Voco Pro Tatiano post 55 said:
[sign]If there is no vehicle for the mind, then there cannot be a mind.
If there is no mind, there can be no expression of personality.
If there can be no expression of personality, then the potential person has not become actual.[/sign]
Voco Pro Tatiano post 15:
[sign]…Yes it is hard to accept that in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease, when the mind of the sufferer has degenerated into a nest of demons, that the person of the sufferer is no longer present, what we have is essentially a body which is to all intents and purposes ‘brain-dead’, so the person of the sufferer is already dead, …[/sign]
My apologies for these direct quotations but you have accused me of misrepresenting your statements already several times. If you would like to restate your position in order to clear up any false impressions we may have of your position your time and effort would be appreciated.
VPT said:
[sign]Yes, I Arrogated to my self, to set boundaries, but I also plainly stated that the boundaries are, in this context, utterly unimportant.[/sign]
VPT said:
[sign]The boundaries between these definitions are not sharp and distinct, but imprecise and fuzzy, and there are thus times when the status is uncertain.[/sign]
Thank you for the correction BTW.
Your boundaries may seem clearly delineated in your mind but you seemingly contradict yourself. Be that as it may, I rephrase the question, “***Would a comatose patient, an anecelphalic baby or someone in the late stages of Alzheimer’s fall within your boundaries of a living human being worthy of the moral status of personhood?” ***
Voco Pro Tatiano post 55 said:
[sign]If there is no vehicle for the mind, then there cannot be a mind.
If there is no mind, there can be no expression of personality.
If there can be no expression of personality, then the potential person has not become actual.[/sign]
Voco Pro Tatiano post 15:
[sign]…Yes it is hard to accept that in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease, when the mind of the sufferer has degenerated into a nest of demons, that the person of the sufferer is no longer present, what we have is essentially a body which is to all intents and purposes ‘brain-dead’, so the person of the sufferer is already dead, …[/sign]
My apologies for these direct quotations but you have accused me of misrepresenting your statements already several times. If you would like to restate your position in order to clear up any false impressions we may have of your position your time and effort would be appreciated.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
Voco Pro Tatiano,
Thank you for so politely acquiescing to reply to all my poking and prodding questions. I appreciate your honesty.
Thank you for so politely acquiescing to reply to all my poking and prodding questions. I appreciate your honesty.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Dear Rosalinda,
I understand, and respect your position on euthanasia, which I know, follows closely the teaching of Mother Church.
I wonder though, for in UK, unlike in Holland or Switzerland, Euthanasia is illegal, and we have the sorry sight of people, with nasty cases, having no good prognosis, traveling overseas to take their deaths before their time because they know that if they do not, then as their illness deteriorates, they will be left trapped with no escape from their suffering.
If I were to treat my dog, or my horse in such a way, I would be condemned, and rightly, of unforgivable cruelty.
Are we to treat humans worse than we treat animals?
Yes, I do understand that there is always the danger of misuse, and of applying pressure, but I have only heard from sufferers who wished that their suffering could be ended. I pray, when my time comes, that a merciful vet might be found.
This is a complex problem, and I am not free from ambivalence, sometimes things which seem clear, can on a second look, seem not so clear.
But remember the conjoined twins, and particularly, the conjoined partial twins.
Remember the two headed girl, now a woman, or might you say two?
Certainly there are two persons there, but they can behave as a single individual, as when walking, or driving a car.
But we are all happy to say, that there are two complete heads, and two entire minds, so two persons, and two souls.
Then again there is the Indian girl, who had two sets of arms and legs.
Here again there was no dispute, only one head, only one mind, only one person, only one soul.
So, at least at some stage, there is a numerical equivalence between head, brain, mind, person, and soul.
Now the head is just a container for the brain.
The brain is just a machine which operates a system called the mind, and the mind is a system wherein the person forms.
That is the science. Wherein resides the soul is a matter for philosophy.
But that shines light upon the acephalic embryo.
No head, ergo no brain, ergo no mind, hence no person.
End of Part one.
- Status