Forums | MacLife

Alien wrote:

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Read my words. I said body.

That dependency for a fetus is only temporary.

Is that relevant?

.tsooJ

Apparently not to some.

Considering how I don't understand it being dependent upon the mother for its first 9 months has any relevance in whether or not it is ethical to kill it - it's relevant to me, I really don't understand why it isn't relevant to others, but apparently it is not.

I guess they are looking for any excuse to say it is OK to kill it and feel good about themselves, because I can't fathom how it makes a difference. It's alive regardless of whether or not it would die should the mother die.

Last edited by resedit (2008-10-08 5:14 am)

Alien wrote:

Apparently, you wish to make it a point that the fetus' dependency is temporary. Now, why is that important?

I was stating a fact.
It is temporary, less than a year. It the way the human reproductive cycle works. About nine months, give or take a few weeks, after the woman conceives - she brings forth a child. Sometimes it comes early, sometimes it comes late. I'm sure you know that.

I wasn't making a point, I was stating a fact.

Please don't go off on a tangent (again (and again(and again))). You have no idea what my, or anyone else's feelings or opinions on the subject are. Cut it with the assumptions and assorted bullcrap and answer a question, for a change.

.tsooJ

Does it matter to you that it is only temporary?
Please explain why.
Without an explanation, all I can do is try to guess, as without an explanation, then no - I really have no idea why it matters to you, if it even does (IE you could be arguing just for the sake of arguing).

resedit wrote:

I guess they are looking for any excuse to say it is OK to kill it and feel good about themselves, because I can't fathom how it makes a difference. It's alive regardless of whether or not it would die should the mother die.

Oh give me a break. You would be screeching bloody murder if the government forced you to cede control of your body for a temporary period.

And btw - you would be crying bloody murder if the government allowed someone to kill you for the sake of convenience.
You'd be screeching it quite literally.

If I was fully dependent on their body to survive, they would be fully justified too!

The right to control your own body outweighs even another's right to life.

While I generally oppose giving civil rights to unimplanted embryos, lets take a close look at the situation. We are making a distinction based on the fact that the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother's body. However, after the birth, the baby is entirely dependent on the mother, or someone else, entirely for months, if not years. Why is infanticide illegal? After all, the infant is still entirely dependent?

How about the severely mentally or physically challenged? They are entirely dependent on others for their care. Why don't we euthanize them? Or how about the elderly who are in too poor a condition to take care of themselves? They are a burden too - why not nix them when they become inconvenient. Lastly, how about the comatose? They are entirely dependent, not only on people; but machines. You don't even have to feel bad - just flip a switch and come back in a few minutes.

We seem to choose somewhat arbitrarily who is, and isn't, worthy of protection.

radarman wrote:

While I generally oppose giving civil rights to unimplanted embryos, lets take a close look at the situation. We are making a distinction based on the fact that the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother's body. However, after the birth, the baby is entirely dependent on the mother, or someone else, entirely for months, if not years. Why is infanticide illegal? After all, the infant is still entirely dependent?

How about the severely mentally or physically challenged? They are entirely dependent on others for their care. Why don't we euthanize them? Or how about the elderly who are in too poor a condition to take care of themselves? They are a burden too - why not nix them when they become inconvenient. Lastly, how about the comatose? They are entirely dependent, not only on people; but machines. You don't even have to feel bad - just flip a switch and come back in a few minutes.

We seem to choose somewhat arbitrarily who is, and isn't, worthy of protection.

There was a farmer, Had a dog ...

And I say that as one of two survivors of a life threatening pregnancy (three if you consider subsequent births).

Last edited by ScifiterX (2008-10-08 10:53 am)

That's rather arbitrary, isn't it? Who are you to decide which of the twain gets to live or die?

.tsooJ

Hypothetical (granted, its hard to come up with a hypothetical that exactly matches):
Two siamese twins are connected. One siamese twin  slips into a nine month coma, but its assumed that after 9 months the twin will wake up. Due to the fact that the second siamese twin is in a coma any operation will likely kill him/her (for the sake of the hypothetical) but once he/she wakes up doctors should be able to perform the operation that will separate the two and both can go on and live normal lives. Is it ethical for the siamese twin who is awake make the dtermination that she doesn't want to wait for 9 months and wants to have the operation now, even if it will potentially kill his/her twin.

Or how about, two babies are joined at the hip one born awake and one born in a coma, but all other perameter are the same. (ie, the doctors are reasonably sure that the baby in a coma will come out of it in a very short period of time and that once it does they can separate the two and both can go on living normal lives. However, if they do perform the operation before the second baby does wake up, it will most definitely die.
Would it be ethical for the parents to   kill the unconccious baby even though in 9 months it will no longer be in a coma and can survive on its own and the two babies can be separated?
Granted, the baby isn't able to make that choice, so its not totally a free will argument for their part.  However, the parents would have to make the determination as to whether to go through with any medical procedures for their children before they are consciously able to do so themselves, so its still a free will argument for the parents at any rate.

Last edited by everlong554 (2008-10-08 2:43 pm)

radarman wrote:

everlong554 wrote:

Hypothetical (granted, its hard to come up with a hypothetical that exactly matches):
Two siamese twins are connected. One siamese twin  slips into a nine month coma, but its assumed that after 9 months the twin will wake up. Due to the fact that the second siamese twin is in a coma any operation will likely kill him/her (for the sake of the hypothetical) but once he/she wakes up doctors should be able to perform the operation that will separate the two and both can go on and live normal lives. Is it ethical for the siamese twin who is awake make the dtermination that she doesn't want to wait for 9 months and wants to have the operation now, even if it will potentially kill his/her twin.

Or how about, two babies are joined at the hip one born awake and one born in a coma, but all other perameter are the same. (ie, the doctors are reasonably sure that the baby in a coma will come out of it in a very short period of time and that once it does they can separate the two and both can go on living normal lives. However, if they do perform the operation before the second baby does wake up, it will most definitely die.
Would it be ethical for the parents to   kill the unconccious baby even though in 9 months it will no longer be in a coma and can survive on its own and the two babies can be separated?
Granted, the baby isn't able to make that choice, so its not totally a free will argument for their part.  However, the parents would have to make the determination as to whether to go through with any medical procedures for their children before they are consciously able to do so themselves, so its still a free will argument for the parents at any rate.

Adult Siamese twins would be an interesting case. However, as long as they are adults, I would think that consent from both would be required. I suppose the surviving twin could try to have the other twin declared legally dead, at which point we could see some really interesting case law develop.

In the case of infant Siamese twins, the parents choose for both.

In the case of the infant siamese twins what would the moral argument be (assuming the hypothetical) for not waiting the 9 months as opposed to killing one infant and letting the other live immediately.

everlong554 wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

The right to control your own body outweighs even another's right to life.

If you kill someone else to control your own body, then you're at the same time infringing on someones right to control their body.

I don't think he was talking about killing anyone. I think he was talking about being coerced into acting, or failing to act, against your best interests for the sake of another.

For example, you cannot be forced to give blood, even if that is the only way to save another persons life.