posted
As I looked back at my post, I noticed that you are indeed right. I concede the point.
------------------ "The lies I told are not falsehoods according to my definition of truth." Bill Clinton "All stupid people are liberals, because they don't know any better." Rob Rodehorst "Don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" - Dilbert, Scott Adams
posted
"You could say the same thing about Hellen Keller as a child, yet I don't think anyone would say that she wasn't human. A child born a vegetable is the same way, yet they are human, are they not?"
One exception, she had consciouness and could reason, although she couldn't see or hear or communicate with others she was still alive. I also think anyone born/becomes a vegatable or unable to properly function without life support should be euthanized (with families permission of course) but that's another topic alogether.
The line between human and just a bunch of tissue is very thin in this area of development and until we can actually discern it, I think the mother (and the father) should be allowed the right to terminate up to a point. You shouldn't be allowed to go 6-7 months then decide you don't want it anymore. That's wrong imo.
posted
Well, there's where we have one of our disagreements.
TLE:
"The line between human and just a bunch of tissue is very thin in this area of development and until we can actually discern it, I think the mother (and the father) should be allowed the right to terminate up to a point."
But who determines the location of that point if we don't know where the line is, or if it even exists? Who has the right to say, "All children after this point are human. All children before this point are not."? You suggest that until that line is determined, we should just draw one up pretty much arbitrarily. I suggest that until that line is determined, we should give them ALL the benefit of the doubt. Our justice system is based on the idea that having ten guilty men set free is better than having one innocent man imprisoned. Why is this not our attitude when dealing with the lives of our children?
------------------ "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited June 23, 2000).]
posted
Um, your connection boggles my mind, Omega. Before a certain point, an embryo has no nervous system. Rather unlike Helen Keller. This isn't an issue of subjective interaction with the outside world, it's a matter of observable fact.
But as long as we're making boggling connections, I've got one. If we want to say that embryos are human even though they lack all these basic systems that make people human, should we not also extend full rights to corpses? Oh, they don't have a functioning brain, or heart, or any other system, but they're human, aren't they?
posted
Of course a corpse is not a living human being. By definition, it can not be. It was at one point, but it never will be again. But an embryo can be, if no one interferes. Again, exactly why should we not extend the same benefit of doubt to children that we do to accused criminals?
You were right. It is a boggling connection.
So you're suggesting that someone is human only if they have certain organs and systems? But how do you define when those organs begin to exist? You get to the same question I asked before: who has the right to draw the line?
And I admit that my point about Keller was off. It barely applied to the statement I was replying to, and doesn't at all to this argument. But the point about vegetables still stands.
Side note: oddly enough, in all my literary travels, I've never seen an actual copy of the hippocratic oath. At least, not until now. I'll quote you a section.
"I will not give to a woman the means to produce an abortion."
If only we still made doctors take this oath today...
------------------ "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
posted
No offense, Omega, but in the past your citing skills have shown themselves to be less than perfect.
At any rate, how do you define an organ? Uh, simple. A heart is a heart, a brain is a brain, etc. Either they perform the task or they don't. And before a certain number of weeks, they don't.
As far as the "will develop into a human if left alone", First has already pointed out the error in that reasoning. We can not say for certain whether it will successfully grow into a baby or not. And depending upon what part of the world you're living in, the odds might be quite unfair indeed.
And aside from all of this, I still find the idea of a non-medical regulatory agency outlawing distasteful medical procedures to be disturbing. Triage is rather distasteful and morally complex too. Do we need a law against it?
(Regarding the Hippocratic Oath, according to the translation made available by the University of Indiana; I'm willing to bet that what you're quoting is this: "And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary." A pessary, according to Miriam-Webster, is "a device worn in the vagina to support the uterus, remedy a malposition, or prevent conception". Now, does "destructive pessary" equal abortion, or is it any form of birth control that is not sanctioned by the husband? Honestly, you can interpret it both ways. But be mindful of the era he was from. And the Oath is still a part of graduation ceremonies. As long as we're constraining our physicians to it, though, I want to register a complain against my doctor. He's constantly cutting those who labor under the stone. A clear violation of medical ethics, no?)
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Did you know that there's a separate triage procedure in event of a nuclear attack on the United States?
The first time I read of it was in the novel "Warday" by Whitley Streiber & James Kunetka (a HELL of a book; I HIGHLY recommend purchasing it if you ever come across a copy. It's the only Streiber book I enjoy.)when I originally read it in 1989. A year later, I happened to meet Mr. Steriber at an annual weirdo convention in Fort Collins, CO, that my mother dragged me along to (don't ask...). I told him point blank that I thought he was a kook, that his "alien abduction" tales were pure bullshit, & that he only produced one true masterpiece--"Warday."
Oddly enough, he liked the fact that I didn't kiss his ass--this 15-year-old kid running up & basically sayign to his face, "Hey, you SUCK!"--& we got to talking about the genesis of the novel. Along the way, I asked him about where he got the idea for the "new" triage & he told me that a few years before wrioting the book, a friend of his at the CDC had told him about it, about how it was a major & radical choice that had been the cause of many resignations in the staff.
See, the "new" triage states that in the event of a nuclear strike on American soil, there will of course be radiation-related deaths both immediately following & for as many as 10 years after the initial attack. Because supplies are expected to be in high demand, people in the afflicted areas are not to be treated on a "most serious need first" basis, but on a "best prospect for survival first" one. This means that you can go to a hospital or clinic only up to a certain point; that after the onset of radiation-related illnesses, you are denied treatment; & that in the most extreme cases where the afflictee will be a potential burden (elderly, mentally ill or retarded, terminally ill), euthanasia is not only recommended but performed on the wish of the family.
Streiber & Kunetka even went so far as to include in full force a small annotation that had been on the real directive that, should the need arise, a local governor/army commander can direct troops to health facilites to prevent those who would be denied treatment from entering said hospital or clinic; if they managed to actually get in, they could be killed on sight.
When the species is in danger, morality takes a holiday.
------------------ "Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel
posted
Interesting (if only prehipherally relevant) Shik. Some people think that morals aren't worth much if you're dead, I guess (and let's not start a debate on whether this would be an immoral thing or not).
Sol:
Re oath: talk to the author of my philosophy course on that one.
"We can not say for certain whether it will successfully grow into a baby or not."
You're not paying attention. It's irrelevant whether it WILL or not. The chance exists, and the question is still "Why, in the name of millions of children, don't we give them the beneift of the doubt?"
"I still find the idea of a non-medical regulatory agency outlawing distasteful medical procedures to be disturbing."
You have a talent for euphamisms. This is not some medical procedure we're talking about. It's the willful ending of a human life!
You guys keep avoiding the questions.
------------------ "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
posted
It depends on what the meaning of "is" is, huh?
Omega:
Really I can't speak against abortion without my religion. My religion is what makes me pro-life. Previously, I was pro-choice. About the Hebrew, translators differ on whatthey words should translate into. My NRSV says murder. I guess they don't put kill because that once led to the radicals who wouldn't step on bugs.
First: I can however try to speak against Abortion as just a plain American (all democratic, republican countries). See, in America we try to give every citizen a shot at success. We let people come from foreign countries to start over here. Whether or not they actually make anything of themselves, everyone in this country is allowed at least one chance to "live the good life." How then, can Americans deny an American fetus the opportunity we don't deny foreigners?
Also, you know if a terrorist took a pregnant woman hostage that the government would come down on the terrorist real hard if he/she killed the baby. They would probably treat it like there was two hostages. Can you see the double standard?
------------------ If you don't believe in what I say or the God I speak of I guess you'll just have to meet me so the Lord and I can convert you.
[This message has been edited by bryce (edited June 24, 2000).]
posted
"Re oath: talk to the author of my philosophy course on that one."
Oh, name please, and title. I am quite curious. I have a feeling this might explain a lot.
"You're not paying attention. It's irrelevant whether it WILL or not. The chance exists, and the question is still 'Why, in the name of millions of children, don't we give them the beneift of the doubt?'"
Would it help if I used hand puppets here? Either we're taking reality into account here or we're not. In the real world, things aren't human just because they might someday be. I mean, honestly, what's next? Do we outlaw menstration?
"You have a talent for euphamisms. This is not some medical procedure we're talking about. It's the willful ending of a human life!"
Abortion isn't a medical procedure? And you're accusing me of using euphamisms? Pot, description follows. Black. Signed, Kettle.
Of course, I could mention that this isn't even an argument, as just because something is a "willful ending of a human life", that doesn't make it wrong. I imagine you are still in favor of capital punishment, and have not embrassed pacifism, Quaker style.
"You guys keep avoiding the questions."
No, we've been giving you answers you don't like. There's a difference.
"See, in America we try to give every citizen a shot at success."
We do?
"We let people come from foreign countries to start over here."
Unless they're Haitian. Or don't fit into the immigration quota for that year.
"How then, can Americans deny an American fetus the opportunity we don't deny foreigners?"
Perhaps because the two situations are utterly unalike?
"They would probably treat it like there was two hostages. Can you see the double standard?"
It's a double standard for it to be illegal for someone to do to me what I don't want them to, but legal for me to? Is it a double standard when the government prosecutes someone for removing the stereo from my car, but doesn't prosecute me for removing it?
posted
Argh! Stupid Copmaq machine! It just spontaneously rebooted and wiped out my response AS I WAS POSTING! ARGH!!!
*deep breath*
OK, I'm better now.
"Oh, name please, and title."
Sophie's World, by Jostein Gaarder. And I just started it a few days ago. I wanted something decent to read, so I broke out part of my philosophy course.
"In the real world, things aren't human just because they might someday be."
You're still ignoring the question. The question is, "WHY are they not considered human?" There's no reason not to give them the benefit of the doubt. Go watch the end speech by that admiral in "The Measure of a Man".
"Do we outlaw menstration?"
As I've pointed out, there are extreme differences between a zygote and a gamite.
"Abortion isn't a medical procedure?"
Would injecting someone with cyanide without their knowledge be a medical procedure? I didn't think so.
"I imagine you are still in favor of capital punishment"
You guys really ought to pay more attention to what I say. I've stated multiple times before that I don't particularly like capital punishment. And don't you dare start equating a vicious murderer to an innocent, unborn child. That I will not stand for.
"No, we've been giving you answers you don't like."
No, you've been avoiding the questions. Answer me directly. Why should we not give someone that may become a human being the benefit of the doubt and call them a human being already? Why do we not treat unborn children as well as we treat suspected criminals?
As for what bryce said, you once again miss the point entirely. Let me spell it out:
If some terrorist kills an unborn child, it's called a murder. If the mother and the doctor kill an unborn child, it's perfectly acceptable. Double standard.
------------------ "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
That's what you get for buying generic. I had the same problem with my Sorny television.
"Sophie's World, by Jostein Gaarder."
Not a bad book, or so I've been told. Of course, I would usually recommend seeking out the source material. Though this is complicated by the fact that many philosophers were/are horribly dull writers.
"You're still ignoring the question. The question is, 'WHY are they not considered human?' There's no reason not to give them the benefit of the doubt. Go watch the end speech by that admiral in 'The Measure of a Man'."
Just out of curiosity, have you ever actually read anything anyone besides yourself has ever posted? As I have said at least once before here, unless your definition of human is purely genetic, unthinking embryos don't fit within it.
Actually, this leads to another very important issue. It may deserve its own thread, but its outcome is so important to this one that I think we should include it here. What does it mean to be human? I am willing to argue that it is not primarily a principle of genetics, nor is it, in the broadest sense, a physical definition at all. Curiosly enough, this is the point that the TNG episode you mention endeavors to prove. How you are extending it to include the statement that nonthinking entities are human is quite beyond me. (And, as I recall, there wasn't any admiral involved, and the pro-Data speech was given by Picard. Unless, that is, you are taking the opposing side, and saying that Data really is just a machine.)
At any rate, I'll hold off on this until we get a consensus from the group on how to best handle it.
"As I've pointed out, there are extreme differences between a zygote and a gamite."
Most certainly. And yet you refuse to acknowledge extreme differences between an embryo and a fetus, and a fetus and a baby. Furthermore, you stated earlier that your opinion regarding said unborn child was independant of its chances of born. In which case I included a case where the chances are extremely low, but not altogether impossible. (And through medical intervention, quite possible indeed.)
"Would injecting someone with cyanide without their knowledge be a medical procedure? I didn't think so."
Yet another misleading analogy, if not downright false. You assume that there are never any benefits, even life-saving ones, to be had from an abortion. Why is it that your argument is predicated upon abortion always being a clear cut moral issue involving only one person? I would suggest it is because it cannot stand up to the realities of the situation.
"You guys really ought to pay more attention to what I say."
Sounds familiar.
"I've stated multiple times before that I don't particularly like capital punishment."
Fine.
"And don't you dare start equating a vicious murderer to an innocent, unborn child. That I will not stand for."
Then why did you invite the parallel in the first place? You stated that one of your problems with abortion was that it is a "willful ending of a human life". I merely pointed out that there are other cases where human lives are ended willfully that you do not seem to object to, rendering this point useless in this particular debate.
"No, you've been avoiding the questions."
Clearly a false statement.
"Why should we not give someone that may become a human being the benefit of the doubt and call them a human being already?"
If I might borrow a page from your debating book, quit dancing around the issue. "Benefit of the doubt"? What exactly does this have to do with anything? Look it this way. Are there rights that certain age groups enjoy that others do not? Of course. Adults can do things that no one would think of letting children do. Children can do things that no one would think of letting newborn babies do. If you accept that adults are different from children, and children from babies; and also that there is a difference far far greater than those that exists between embryos and human beings capable of conscious thought; then why must we treat them the same?
"If some terrorist kills an unborn child, it's called a murder. If the mother and the doctor kill an unborn child, it's perfectly acceptable. Double standard."
You honestly fail to see the difference in these two cases? You cannot concieve of an instance in which it is right for a doctor to perform an action and wrong for someone else? I am curious to know what color rainclouds are on your planet, as it appears to lack the shade we call grey.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
