Rational Abortion Support

[Tlaloc]

OhioBob:

So your point is that any infant that requires medical support is not an organism?

If it requires medical equipment because it did not develop fully while in utero, then yes.

Are you serious? Full term infants often require incubators, IVs, oxygen, bili-lights, even surgery.

Interesting, both of mine only required a blanket and some practice “latching” on.

Are you telling the couple whose twins born at 32 weeks that needed two months of care in the NICU and are now kindergardeners that those kids were not organisms? Or that aborting them would have been morally acceptable?

If that is indeed before the time period that medical experts would settle on, then sure. If not then no.

How about the fetus that required surgery at 18 weeks to correct a heart defect that then developed normally and is now a healthy child? Would aborting that child have been acceptable just because it needed medical support?

Aborting it before it became an organism would have been acceptable. But a baby born with a heart defect that requires medical attention would be an organism because the issue isn’t one of a lack of development but a fault during development.

In my own case, both my kids were born by C-section, without which they would not have survived. Both spent time on IVs and in an incubator. Are you really suggesting that they weren’t organisms and that aborting them would have been morally acceptable? Take a minute and think about what you are saying.

Depends on how old they were and why they needed medical equipement. I have thought about what i’m saying, now I’m just trying to help others get it straight.

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc:

But the words aren’t interchangable. I used “Human” or “Human Being.” I didn’t use “homo sapien.” I can’t just replace human with homosapien withuot changing what I mean.

well, we’re talking about homo sapiens now. do you know what that phrase (homo sapiens) means?

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc:

I’d say it’s wrong to kill an innocent human being.

Tlaloc, come on now buddy, that’s not what the questions asked:tsktsk:

Answer the questions as they are written.

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc:

But the words aren’t interchangable. I used “Human” or “Human Being.” I didn’t use “homo sapien.” I can’t just replace human with homosapien withuot changing what I mean.

by the way, just curious, what would be the difference?

 

[OhioBob]

Tlaloc:

Interesting, both of mine only required a blanket and some practice “latching” on.

So I assume then that if they had required more than that because they had “not developed sufficiently” you would have told the doctors to skip it and let them die because they weren’t really organisms. You should go tell your kids that. I’m sure they will appreciate the high bar they were able to clear and feel incredibly fortunate that blankets and some latching practice were all they needed. Hopefully their own children will be (or have been) equally lucky to dodge your moral bullet.

Tlaloc:

Depends on how old they were and why they needed medical equipement.

On behalf of my kids, I appreciate your sensitivity. I’m glad you weren’t our doctor.

Tlaloc:

I have thought about what i’m saying, now I’m just trying to help others get it straight.

You might want to think about it some more. Its not fully developed.

 

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

well, we’re talking about homo sapiens now. do you know what that phrase (homo sapiens) means?

I’m not using homo sapien because it doesn’t relate to the question at hand.

Yes it’s the biological genus and species we belong to (technically homo sapiens sapiens). As such it has a very specific meaning. Humanity on the other hand is quite a bit more flexible.

While I would say it is wrong to kill an innocent human being i wouldn’t say the same about a homo sapiens. The two are not identical.

 

[Tlaloc]

OhioBob:

So I assume then that if they had required more than that because they had “not developed sufficiently” you would have told the doctors to skip it and let them die because they weren’t really organisms.

Wow, way to totally get what I’ve said wrong. Have I ever argued for aborting all fetuses? Of course not, only that such is permissable before they become human beings. That doesn’t mean choosing to let them develop is a bad choice.

You should go tell your kids that. I’m sure they will appreciate the high bar they were able to clear and feel incredibly fortunate that blankets and some latching practice were all they needed. Hopefully their own children will be (or have been) equally lucky to dodge your moral bullet.

Emotional appeals will get you no where, argue with reason or don’t bother.

You might want to think about it some more. Its not fully developed.

Actually it is. Were it not you might be using appeals to reason rather than emotion and personal attacks.

 

[OhioBob]

Tlaloc:

Wow, way to totally get what I’ve said wrong. Have I ever argued for aborting all fetuses? Of course not, only that such is permissable before they become human beings…

You lost me.

I said “So your point is that any infant that requires medical support is not an organism?” and you said “If it requires medical equipment because it did not develop fully while in utero, then yes.” How exactly did I totally get what you said wrong?

I didn’t say you argued for aborting all fetuses? I did assume from your statements that infants that required medical support because they “didn’t develop fully” were not organisms, hence, aborting them is morally acceptable to you.

Tlaloc:

Emotional appeals will get you no where…

No kidding. There is no room at all for emotion in your position. Unfortunately all infants are not perfect, requiring only a warm spot and some milk. You can’t separate emotion from life. Well, at least most of us can’t. You apparently have no problem with it.

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc:

I’m not using homo sapien because it doesn’t relate to the question at hand.

Yes it’s the biological genus and species we belong to (technically homo sapiens sapiens). As such it has a very specific meaning. Humanity on the other hand is quite a bit more flexible.

While I would say it is wrong to kill an innocent human being i wouldn’t say the same about a homo sapiens. The two are not identical.

Ok, so you would not say it is wrong to kill an innocent homo sapiens? Just getting that straight.

You forgot to answer whether or not it is wrong for the one brother to cut off the dependant brother. (no dodging Tlaloc :tsktsk: ) (yes or no, easy answer. I’ll even let you throw in conditions, that’s how nice I am)

What’s the difference between a homo sapiens and a human being, according to you?

 

[Tlaloc]

OhioBob:

You lost me.
I said “So your point is that any infant that requires medical support is not an organism?” and you said “If it requires medical equipment because it did not develop fully while in utero, then yes.” How exactly did I totally get what you said wrong?

no you said:
“So I assume then that if they had required more than that because they had “not developed sufficiently” you would have told the doctors to skip it and let them die because they weren’t really organisms.”

which implies I’ve said all fetuses should be aborted, not that abortion is allowed.

I didn’t say you argued for aborting all fetuses? I did assume from your statements that infants that required medical support because they “didn’t develop fully” were not organisms, hence, aborting them is morally acceptable to you.

you went beyond that from acceptable to required. had you said “So I assume then that if they had required more than that because they had “not developed sufficiently” you COULD have told the doctors to skip it and let them die because they weren’t really organisms.” you would have been much more accurate. There is a substantial difference between “would” and “could.”

No kidding. There is no room at all for emotion in your position.

Emotion is a handicap in such discussions. To avoid feeling bad you’ll end up taking position far more heartless than if you’d siomply been rational. Engaging in emotion in such a decision is selfishness of the highest order because it places your personal comfort above the best benefit for all involved.

Unfortunately all infants are not perfect, requiring only a warm spot and some milk.

As I said any baby born with a defect not caused by being too premature would still be an organism. It would have had a flawed development (hopefully fixable by medical science) but it still would have developed.

You can’t separate emotion from life. Well, at least most of us can’t. You apparently have no problem with it.

Then you have no place making decisions regarding others. Anyone in a position of authority must be able to supress emotion and deal rationally. Doctor’s learn this. Lawyer’s learn this. Military officers learn this. It is vital to the ability to make the right decision regardless of what you want.

My daughter had spinal meningitis. I did not want her to have a spinal tap, or actually three spinal taps and had I allowed my emotions control I would have prevented it. But it was what she needed in order to live. So I put emotion aside. It was the rational solution, but not the emotional one.

Make no mistake. Your emotions are poisonous to your ability to make a good decision.

 

[OhioBob]

Tlaloc:

Wow, way to totally get what I’ve said wrong. Have I ever argued for aborting all fetuses? Of course not, only that such is permissable before they become human beings.

To put it another way, your argument is circular. You claim that it would be morally acceptable to abort a fetus if you know that it will not be able to survive without medical support (beyond warmth and food) since it is not an organism. But you also claim that if an infant is born and it cannot survive without medical support (beyond warmth and food) that does not mean that it would be morally acceptable to have aborted it.

Apparently you can’t say whether an abortion would be morally acceptable until after birth when the survival status of the fetus is known.

And you keep mixing “human beings” and “organisms”. I’m really trying to discuss this logically, but you are losing me.

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc, you have been talking about organisms a lot. All homo sapiens are organisms, no? So what’s the big deal about using homo sapiens instead of human beings?

(still answer post #288 too)

When is it ok to kill an innocnt homo sapiens?

 

[OhioBob]

Tlaloc:

My daughter had spinal meningitis. I did not want her to have a spinal tap, or actually three spinal taps and had I allowed my emotions control I would have prevented it. But it was what she needed in order to live. So I put emotion aside. It was the rational solution, but not the emotional one.

Having been down the spinal tap road with a child myself, I can appreciate where you have been.

Another way of looking at it is that you made your decision based completely on your emotions. The emotion of love for your daughter. What you were able to put aside was not your emotional connection to your daughter but your rational opinion regarding the pro’s and con’s of spinal taps. You put those opinions aside because emotionally, you loved her and wanted her to live. Not because she would be a productive member of society, or because she was an organism, but because she was your daughter and you loved her and you wanted her to have life.

It sounds like a decision totally based upon emotion, as it should be.

I work with doctors every day and while they do not let their emotions blind them to the facts, I don’t know one whose emotional connection to their patients on one level or another (the desire to give them life, happiness, well-being, ease suffering, etc) doesn’t play a part in their decisions.

I wouldn’t trust a physician who treated a patient with complete moral and emotional detachment.

 

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

Ok, so you would not say it is wrong to kill an innocent homo sapiens? Just getting that straight.

I couldn’t answer the question based solely on the knowledge that the subject was homo sapiens.

You forgot to answer whether or not it is wrong for the one brother to cut off the dependant brother. (no dodging Tlaloc :tsktsk: ) (yes or no, easy answer. I’ll even let you throw in conditions, that’s how nice I am)

You kept phrasing it in homo sapiens terms and I kept trying to explain why those terms aren’t going to work for me. Hence why i didn’t answer. Assuming we’re talking about adult conjoined twins and one can live without the other but the reverse is not true yes I think they could remove their twin.

What’s the difference between a homo sapiens and a human being, according to you?

One is purely a mechanical science term the other incorporates a lot lot more. There are a great many homo sapiens who I’d have a hard time calling human. Fred Phelps leaps to mind.

 

[Strider]

I haven’t had time to read every post on this thread, so I apologize in advance if I’m repeating territory already covered.
The problem with Tlaloc’s whole premise is that it is completely subjective.
If viability is his beltline for allowing children to live in the womb, then we must ask: Which country is he speaking of? Which region within that country? Which city in that region and, finally, which hospital within that city?
The reason we must ask those questions is that viability can vary widely.

bcheights.com/news/2003/11/25/Columns/Fetal.Viability.Not.Grounds.For.Moral.Judgement-567213.shtml

The well-known (that’s the most credit I’ll give him) “bioethecist” Peter Singer writes that we can kill the infant up to one month after birth, if it’s determined that the quality of life of that infant (I don’t think even Tlaloic would argue that this is a human baby) is not deemed worthy of consuming resources.

literatus.net/essay/BioEthics.html

In Germany, circa 1937, called it “Life unworthy of life.” No, I’m not calling ANYONE on this forum a Nazi, just giving a reference.
The only completely objective definition of the beginning of human life is fertilization. At that instant, the fetus has 46 absolutely unique human chromosomes; not the mother’s and not the father’s and not a copy of half of each, but having been shuffled first to insure uniqueness.
Any other definition of the beginning of human life: formation of the nervous system, quickening, viability, survivability, birth or any other time during development (of course he has to develop!) is subjective because those points can vary widely according to the points I made above.
Fertilization is the only completely objective point for our beginning. At fertilization, the woman won’t know for some time that she’s pregnant, so by the time she discovers her condition, abortion is unthinkable, and no amount of playing word games or pseudo-philosophy will change that fact.

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc:

I couldn’t answer the question based solely on the knowledge that the subject was homo sapiens.

You kept phrasing it in homo sapiens terms and I kept trying to explain why those terms aren’t going to work for me. Hence why i didn’t answer. Assuming we’re talking about adult conjoined twins and one can live without the other but the reverse is not true yes I think they could remove their twin.

One is purely a mechanical science term the other incorporates a lot lot more. There are a great many homo sapiens who I’d have a hard time calling human. Fred Phelps leaps to mind.

so is it ok to kill an innocent homo sapiens sapiens? if so, when?

what more does calling something “human” require that homo sapiens sapiens does not include?

Your recent posts have said you cannot abort when the fetus becomes an organism, correct? So why is this homo sapiens phrase bothering you, if you are using the scientific organism?

 

[Genesis315]

**

**When conjoined twins are born, it’s automatically assumed that they should be separated. But, Alice D. Dreger, a Michigan State University medical historian disagrees with this. She says that, “When it comes to cases in which one of the twins must be ‘sacrificed’, it is ethically wrong to take one life so another may live.” She argues that it is unethical to kill one conscious head, given that we wouldn’t do that in any other case." She also quotes, “It is unethical to treat children with unusual anatomies according to a different set of ethical guidelines than other children.” **

**
conjoined-twins.i-p.com/

According to this doctor, it is unethical to separate them when both would die if not for separation, unlike our case when the adults would live just fine together. It follows that separation for them would be unethical in her view too, no?

Would you argue with her statement? If so, which parts?

 

[Tlaloc]

Strider:

If viability is his beltline for allowing children to live in the womb,

It’s not. See Ohiobob’s post a little above yours.

 

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

so is it ok to kill an innocent homo sapiens sapiens? if so, when?

possibly, it’s really off the topic though and I’m having enough problems just clarifying the actual topic at hand so i’d rather not wander to far afield.

what more does calling something “human” require that homo sapiens sapiens does not include?

Depends on your personal definition of human. That’s the point. Homo sapiens is a soul less biological term. Human is not. Its a term rich with individual meaning.

Your recent posts have said you cannot abort when the fetus becomes an organism, correct? So why is this homo sapiens phrase bothering you, if you are using the scientific organism?

I don’t honestly know that I’m using organism in the strictest scientific meaning. Do you have one?

 

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

conjoined-twins.i-p.com/

According to this doctor, it is unethical to separate them when both would die if not for separation, unlike our case when the adults would live just fine together. It follows that separation for them would be unethical in her view too, no?

Would you argue with her statement? If so, which parts?

I’d agree with her that the decision shouldn’t be automatic. I don’t agree with her that removing an extra head from a child is unethical per se.