F
fix
Guest
I am not restricting it. I am pointing out that a child is not pathology.
- Status
L
littlechicken
Guest
cebid.blogspot.com/2012/11/nickolas-coke-boy-born-without-brain.html
science20.com/cool-links/man_vegetative_state_communicates_doctors_mri_communication-96400
A couple of interesting links.
G’night everyone.
science20.com/cool-links/man_vegetative_state_communicates_doctors_mri_communication-96400
A couple of interesting links.
G’night everyone.
R
R_C
Guest
If a person is trying to kill you, that person is not innocent.
If that person is not trying to kill you, you cannot kill him to save yourself.
If I am terminal and need an organ to live and you are the only person on earth that has the perfect match, I cannot murder you so that I may live.
Having a baby is an important responsibility because, as you say, there is a very special relationship. One cannot simply say at one point: I don’t like the way this is going, or I’m in pain, or I’m dying. That does not undo the relationship. It’s very delicate and complex.
The “fetus” is a human being, just like a mentally incapacitated person, just like a Cancer patient in great pain, or a wounded soldier on the battlefield who is eventually going to die. This reasoning of who deserves the chance to live is inhumane, an attempt to build a hierarchy of who is more worthy…it is Hobbes’ “state of nature”, it is survival of the fittest! We are not in a jungle, for goodness grace, we are human beings!
If that person is not trying to kill you, you cannot kill him to save yourself.
If I am terminal and need an organ to live and you are the only person on earth that has the perfect match, I cannot murder you so that I may live.
Having a baby is an important responsibility because, as you say, there is a very special relationship. One cannot simply say at one point: I don’t like the way this is going, or I’m in pain, or I’m dying. That does not undo the relationship. It’s very delicate and complex.
Who cares at all about how her family felt? A life is a life, and a life of a child is infinitely more worthy than the life of an adult, because the child is defenseless and relies on the parents to live, and if their parents stop protecting him, he relies on society to protect him.
The “fetus” is a human being, just like a mentally incapacitated person, just like a Cancer patient in great pain, or a wounded soldier on the battlefield who is eventually going to die. This reasoning of who deserves the chance to live is inhumane, an attempt to build a hierarchy of who is more worthy…it is Hobbes’ “state of nature”, it is survival of the fittest! We are not in a jungle, for goodness grace, we are human beings!
Of course! From the utilitarian standpoint, from the cold, cynical standpoint it makes perfect sense.
M
MichaelNamb
Guest
Here is something to consider:
With stem cell transplants, a donor is used to harvest peripheral blood stem cells to give to a patient with leukemia or similar blood diseases. Sometimes, this initial transplant is not enough, something called a donor lymphocute infusion is required (aka a DLI). This means that additional lymphocytes must be taken from the blood of the original donor as a boost to the original transplant. In most cases where a DLI is needed the patient will die without one. The procedure to collect additional lymphocytes carries very little risk.
And yet, we do not use force of law to compell donors to give these lymphocytes even in cases where the patient will certainly die without them. This despite the fact that donation is not even dangerous, that the patient will certainly die without the donation, AND despite the fact that the donor chose to voluntarily put themselves in a position where another human being was dependent upon their body for survival.
If we do not compell donations for a DLI even though it carries almost no risk, even if the donation is for their own child, then it makes no sense to compell a pregnant woman to risk her health or her life for a fetus if she does not want to. We, as a society, recognize that no person should have** to use their body to save another person, even if the only thing they would be sacrificing is a few hours of their time. This is why blood donation is voluntary and not something we are all forced to do.
I understand that Catholics make a distinction between killing someone through action (abortion) and killing someone through inaction (as in not donating lymphocytes), but I think this is an arbitrary and irrational distinction. The person is still just as dead, and they died as a result of decisions you made.
Let’s say I’m at a swimming pool, and my toddler falls in the water. I watch him drown and do nothing, even though saving him would require nothing more than reaching in and hauling him out. I do not think most people would think I am any less guilty than if I pushed him in myself. Even though he died from my inaction rather than my action, he still died as a result of the decision I made. My choice not to save him has the same result from my intentionally killing him and has no real moral distinction.
With stem cell transplants, a donor is used to harvest peripheral blood stem cells to give to a patient with leukemia or similar blood diseases. Sometimes, this initial transplant is not enough, something called a donor lymphocute infusion is required (aka a DLI). This means that additional lymphocytes must be taken from the blood of the original donor as a boost to the original transplant. In most cases where a DLI is needed the patient will die without one. The procedure to collect additional lymphocytes carries very little risk.
And yet, we do not use force of law to compell donors to give these lymphocytes even in cases where the patient will certainly die without them. This despite the fact that donation is not even dangerous, that the patient will certainly die without the donation, AND despite the fact that the donor chose to voluntarily put themselves in a position where another human being was dependent upon their body for survival.
If we do not compell donations for a DLI even though it carries almost no risk, even if the donation is for their own child, then it makes no sense to compell a pregnant woman to risk her health or her life for a fetus if she does not want to. We, as a society, recognize that no person should have** to use their body to save another person, even if the only thing they would be sacrificing is a few hours of their time. This is why blood donation is voluntary and not something we are all forced to do.
I understand that Catholics make a distinction between killing someone through action (abortion) and killing someone through inaction (as in not donating lymphocytes), but I think this is an arbitrary and irrational distinction. The person is still just as dead, and they died as a result of decisions you made.
Let’s say I’m at a swimming pool, and my toddler falls in the water. I watch him drown and do nothing, even though saving him would require nothing more than reaching in and hauling him out. I do not think most people would think I am any less guilty than if I pushed him in myself. Even though he died from my inaction rather than my action, he still died as a result of the decision I made. My choice not to save him has the same result from my intentionally killing him and has no real moral distinction.
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
Life alone is enough. So now its because its too expensive? We could argue that people on welfare are too expensive, so why not kill them off? Your idealogy is very morbid.oh i agree.
unfortunately life alone is sometimes not enough. take for example the case of the brain dead. Whats the point of spending a fortune just to keep it alive? Resources that can be used to sustain or save others instead. recovery is impossible for the brain dead.
and in this case about Savita, that ‘life’ was unviable. Why cant you just cut its life just a little shorter and in the process save Savita all that pain and give her a fighting chance to live and have more babies?
how the hitler card again. you really think the jews caused them agony?
As youve bolded its NOT ME who has felt that agony so why are you asking what I think? Hitler said they caused him agony, thats enough for you that justifies their extermination, based on your criteria.
Your criteria being “if its too expensive and/or if it causes you agony, kill it.”
G
Ghosty
Guest
Was your daughter in labor or suffering life-threatening complications, or was it just a matter of the child dying in the womb? That makes a big difference.
I’m very sorry for your loss, and I pray your daughter has recovered. We just went through a premie birth ourselves, thankfully healthy, but the pain and stress is incredible.
Peace and God bless!
M
MichaelNamb
Guest
Hitler and the Jews and a mother and her fetus are not comparable. Jews were not living inside of Hitler’s body, dependent on Hitler’s body for their survival, and causing a direct, measureable, and quantifiable risk to Hitler’s life and health.
Also, the Jews were viable, already born human beings.
here would be a correct analogy:
Young Hitler has a Jewish friend with kidney failure who needs daily dialysis. They have not yet found a match for a new kidney. However, doctors have invented a new kind of technology, in which they can attach the Jewish friend to Hitler by a machine, which essentially works like dialysis in that Hitler’s body can be used to clean the blood of his Jewish friend. In this hypothetical, the friend must receive this treatment every day by a certain time or they will die. Hitler is currently attached to his friend for their daily treatment. However, something is going wrong. The friend’s blood is found to be poisoning Hitler. If Hitler continues the treatment, he will grow very ill. He may even die. However, if he detatches the machine, his friend will certainly die. Hitler tells the doctors to unplug the machine. His Jewish friend dies.
There, that is a correct analogy. Not Hitler gassing Jews because he’s a Jew hating psychopathic megalomaniac.
The lack of compassion it takes to compare a woman who doesn’t want to die for her fetus to Hitler is absolutely astounding. I cannot fathom having such hatred in my heart that I would compare such a desparate woman to one of the most evil men who have ever lived. It is too bad that your love for God has clouded your ability to sympathize and love your fellow man and leaves you only with the ability to demonize them.
L
littlechicken
Guest
I couldn’t rest without addressing this. I am sorry for your daughter’s loss of her child, and for your loss of your grandchild.
I am sure you know she is comforted and at peace now.
G’night,
littlechicken
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
The poster I am responding to is talking about who has the right to let live or who gets to end life. He is saying if it causes you agony, its ok to kill it. Its the same MENTALITY Hitler possessed , but in a different situation.
Your use of “viable human beings” and justificatory terms is all sugarcoating. Because again it boils down to: Who decides who is a viable human being and who is not?
M
MichaelNamb
Guest
The term “viable” means something that is capable of working successfully.
It’s incredibly easy to define who is a viable human or not. A viable human being is not dependent upon the bodily functions of another to survive and function. Again, see my example of Hitler in the dialysis machine with his Jewish friend, or my real world example of stem cell donors.
“He is saying if it causes you agony, its ok to kill it. Its the same MENTALITY Hitler possessed , but in a different situation.”
Hitler was a vegetarian. So am I. I obviously possessed the same mentality, at least to some extent, as Hitler. If you use enough mental gymnastics, you can compare everyone to Hitler. It is not a good argument, it makes you look desparate.
J
juandimaunahan
Guest
no. this is what i’m saying:
- If its unviable (condemned by god/mother_nature to die in a short period of time. and cannot be saved by artificial means)
- And If its early termination can better one’s chances of survival.
just think of its as helping god.
at least the doctors do. thats whats they just did on this case.
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
Sorry your logic is failing once again.
Hitler reguarded the Jews as a parasite. Leeches of society. He felt they could not live on their own, only with the help of Germans. Theu were not viable human beings to him, the same way you reguard fetuses.
If there is anyone who has hate in their heart and lack of compassion for fellow man, ots those who justify the mass murder of babies.
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
Wrong. God decides who is viable.
M
MichaelNamb
Guest
As I said, I’m a vegetarian. The vast majority of people in my society are not. Why? Because they say it is too difficult, they cannot bare not eating meat, it causes them too much discomfort. Some have even described the idea of never eating meat again as agony.
Unless you are a vegetarian, you also think it is okay to kill in order satisfy a carnal pleasure, the eating of meat. If you are a vegetarian, certainly, like me, most of the people you care about are not. That doesn’t make you, or your loved ones, Hitler.
J
juandimaunahan
Guest
ok then bring god here let him decide.
oh yeah he already passed judgement by killing the fetus after 3 days.
man, you dont have to wake god up for these little trivias. doctors can see clearly what he has decided already.
M
MichaelNamb
Guest
No, you are the one failing at logic:
Hitler* regarded* the Jews as a parasite. Leeches of society. He felt they could not live on their own, only with the help of Germans.
Exactly. He *regarded *them as such. That was Hitler’s opinion, it was not an objective, medical fact based on evidence. In fact, it is an easily disprovable fact, as Jews have gotten along just fine without being dependent on the German state.
It is inarguable that a fetus is dependent on the mother and cannot live without them, or that a stem cell transplant patient in need of a DLI will die without one. These are objective facts.
it is ridiculous to say the delusions of a hateful mad man are comparable to verifiable, medical facts.
I am not advocating for blanket abortion, to be clear. I am talking of the singular case in which the fetus threatens the health or life of the mother.
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
Thia doesnt add up. I think animals are okay for consumption for survival because God has given man authority to do so.
God has never given authority to kill fetuses.
T
thewanderer
Guest
What do you mean by causing an abortion? Would you mind clarifying this for me? Perhaps there is something that I do not know which is causing the disagreement between us.
M
MichaelNamb
Guest
Says you. I don’t believe the Bible is true. Neither did Savita.
But for you, someone who follows the Bible, why are you posting on an internet forum? Where in the Bible did God give authority to post messages on internet forums?
Where did God give the authority to treat cancer with chemotherapy?
- Status