|
Post by PeterB on Jan 6, 2008 9:00:35 GMT -4
As I said before, a quality of life argument is a very thorny one. Who decides when a person is better off dead than alive? And if it applies to unborn people, why doesn't it apply to born people as well? The old or the mentally handicapped, for instance? What is the moral difference between killing a child in the womb and one out of it? I know I've asked that one before, but no one has answered it yet. A tricky question, and one I've tried to work through. I can't say my position is morally watertight, but I've tried to make it as internally consistent as possible. As a general rule, I don't like the idea of abortion once the foetus is viable outside the womb. Therefore, seeing as children as young as four months premature can survive, that sets a limit on acceptable abortion. That decision would be made by the mother, although advice from the medical community and the father should be considered as well. At the other end of life, I accept the idea of euthanasia, as long as the decision is clearly that of the person concerned, and it's clear they're of sound mind. I'm not comfortable with guardians having the right to make the decision to end the life of someone they're responsible for, though I know of situations which have occurred which I think were reasonable in the circumstances. Having said that, I wouldn't have wanted to be in those circumstances.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 6, 2008 13:21:22 GMT -4
To throw a little more coal on the fire, how many times have you heard a story of a child who was raised in orphanages and other desperate cirucmstances and still rose above those circumstances of birth to become a great person?
How does the viability of survival outside the womb change the moral issue? Babies and young children are pretty much completely dependent on their parents for survival well into their early lives as well, yet are protected by law.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 6, 2008 15:54:15 GMT -4
Babies and young children are pretty much completely dependent on their parents for survival well into their early lives as well No. They are dependent on some person or people looking after them. Not any specific person, or even necessarily even a relative. In the early part of gestation a foetus is entirely dependent, even for basic metabolism on its mother.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 6, 2008 20:43:18 GMT -4
Babies and young children are pretty much completely dependent on their parents for survival well into their early lives as well No. They are dependent on some person or people looking after them. Not any specific person, or even necessarily even a relative. In the early part of gestation a foetus is entirely dependent, even for basic metabolism on its mother. So how does this affect the issue morally? Is your argument simply "because a person is completely dependent on one specific person, the decision to continue that persons's life is up to them and them alone?"
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 7, 2008 12:18:36 GMT -4
"Killing" something that cannot exist independently anyway doesn't actually mean much.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 7, 2008 12:41:10 GMT -4
"Killing" something that cannot exist independently anyway doesn't actually mean much. I strenuously disagree. The logic that "they wouldn't survive anyway" would mean you could morally deny medical treatment, housing, food, or any other commodity that a person can't procure by their own efforts. Serves them right for not being self-sufficient, eh? Do you see the problem with the idea of assigning worth to a person based on your estimate of their survivability? It may even be a correct estimate, but does that make any difference morally?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 7, 2008 12:51:50 GMT -4
We'll make a socialist of you yet ;D
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 7, 2008 13:05:41 GMT -4
We'll make a socialist of you yet ;D There is a distinct moral difference between being forced to support people you have no connection with and someone who exists as a direct result of your actions. Also, there is a difference between supporting those who could work for themselves if they were willing and those who are truly helpless.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 20, 2008 23:18:02 GMT -4
Of interest to this topic: Abortion is apparently becoming less common in the U.S. The rate of abortions last year is the lowest in the 30 years since Roe vs. Wade. In 1992 a Gallup poll concluded that 34% of Americans thought abortion should be legal in all circumstances, with 13% saying it should be illegal. Last year a similar poll had results of 26% always legal and 18% always illegal. Another poll in 2003 determined that 33% of kids from 13 to 17 said that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, and 72% of the same group said abortion was "morally wrong." The Democratic Party's 2004 platform eliminated all mention of abortion. Since 1990, the number of abortions has dropped from 1.61 million to 1.21 million. Lest you think the rate is merely a statistical artifact of more effective birth control, in 1990 the number of pregnancies that ended in an abortion was 30.4%. In 2007 this was 22.4%.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 20, 2008 23:21:28 GMT -4
Last year a similar poll had results of 26% always legal and 18% always illegal. huh.
Good news on the whole though Jason.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 21, 2008 14:28:27 GMT -4
Abortions are harder to come by, these days. Anti-abortion groups scared a lot of clinics away with violence or threats of violence or worked to put them out of business with malpractice lawsuits. The United States government currently provides false information about abortion, which also suppresses numbers. Today, 88% of US counties have no abortion provider. 97% of non-metropilitan counties have no abortion provider. If there is no abortion provider and you provide false information to kids about abortion, it is easy to get the rate to go down. And don't forget -- the teen and unmarried birth rates are on the rise for the first time in 15 years: www.cdc.gov/NCHS/pressroom/07newsreleases/teenbirth.htm
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 21, 2008 15:42:26 GMT -4
Well I know someone going to call Godwin's Law on me, but....
In the seven years from 1938-1945 the Nazi's in Germany killed between 5 and 6 million Jews. This was called the greatest crime of the 20th Century.
From Jason's figures, in the seven years of this century, the USA has killed over 8 million unborn, and hardly anyone blinks.
That alone should be enough to make people think.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 21, 2008 16:36:28 GMT -4
Abortions are harder to come by, these days. Evidence? Evidence? Evidence? Evidence?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 21, 2008 19:56:49 GMT -4
Well I know someone going to call Godwin's Law on me, but.... In the seven years from 1938-1945 the Nazi's in Germany killed between 5 and 6 million Jews. This was called the greatest crime of the 20th Century. From Jason's figures, in the seven years of this century, the USA has killed over 8 million unborn, and hardly anyone blinks. That alone should be enough to make people think. You're forgetting the 5-6 million non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust. (Although nearly everyone else does too.)
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 21, 2008 20:11:41 GMT -4
You're forgetting the 5-6 million non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust. (Although nearly everyone else does too.) No, not for my point I'm not. As you pointed out, most people don't consider the gypsies, priests, crippled, handicapped and others that the Nazi's killed as much as they do the Jewish people killed. When people speck of "The Holocaust" they are meaning the Jews killed. My point is that there are more potential lives being extingushed in the US that there were Jews killed in the holocaust. One is considered a great crime, one barely raises a mention. It's a little inconsistant if you ask me. Heck if one person in NZ was killed for every baby aborted in the US, NZ would be depopulated in just 4 years! Doesn't that at least raise an eyebrow?
|
|