anonemouse

Here's another one: www.prochoice.org

And a DNR isn't allowing someone to be killed. It's allowing them to die.

That's true. But what about if it was one of your children? They don't have any choice about whether or not you make that decision for them.

Well, hell, the whole idea is hypothetical, isn't it? Does it matter that a hypothetical situation is against the Hippocratic oath? It's not like the situation is likely to happen in real life, is it? Maybe you think it should, but it doesn't. And it isn't "absent of arbitrary criteria". Do you consider life to be the presence of a heart beat or the ability to sustain a heartbeat? There are lots of criteria like those that you have to consider.

Sometimes, we have to make hard decisions. The results may make us feel horrible and crappy, but what we should be thinking about are the people that those decisions impact, not how those decisions make us feel. Are they free of pain? I consider it morally bankrupt to keep someone in pain just so that we don't have to make a hard, heart breaking decision.

To me, that's horrible. If my loved one was in horrible pain, I would hope that I would give them at least the same respect that I'd give my pet, and not allow them to suffer just so that it would make me feel better. Most of us consider it to be disgusting when people keep their pets alive long past the point where they have a life worth living. Why don't we think that for our loved ones? All it does is cause them more pain.

It doesn't work that way.

Exactly. Deciding to euthanize a child that is a vegetable or is living in excruciating pain is a medical decision. And it is entirely different than an unneeded amputation. It would bring you joy to watch your children go through excruciating, unmanageable pain? I can understand your position if the child we are discussing had Down's Syndrome or was severely autistic. But what if your child was completely unresponsive, except for pain. All they could do was lay in a hospital bed and feel pain. Would they bring you joy then? What about what they feel? When does their right to be free of pain override your right to keep them in this world? When their quality of life drops so low as to be nonexistant, don't they have the right to pass from this world painlessly? Or would you be so selfish as to keep them in constant pain, just so that you can say that you are pro-life?

But there is no set definition of when life begins. Really? I hope you are anti-death penalty, then. We make this decision all the time. When we go to war, we decide that someone must die. When we sentence someone to death, we decide that someone must die. When we sign a DNR, we decide that someone must die (or at least, that they shouldn't live).

Which brings us back to my statement that his community needs to harass it's leaders into hiring more police. It still makes no sense that they have only 3 policemen per shift when they have such a high crime rate. And my statement about moving was meant to be a comparison of how we tend to view this surgery and how we view our personal safety. Many people say that if they had to, they would take out loans, sell their property, do whatever they had to to have this surgery. Why don't they feel that way about their personal safety?

I've been experiencing problems when trying to edit posts. The edit box is always full of little yellow smiley-faces.

Actually, medically, we do own our children, so to speak. Until they are 18, parents make medical decisions for their children (with the exception of reproduction). That's why parents don't have to fill out lots of legal paperwork if they want the ability to make medical decisions for their children. They already have that right. Yes, it is, but it also gives a pretty clear idea as to what he considers "defective". I'd hope that you wouldn't consider your children to be causing you suffering. What you have to look at, though, is whether there is more suffering than happiness.

Even a highly psychotic parent has the right to decide, if they have custody of the child or person in question. It isn't like they would be allowed to decide if a perfectly healthy newborn would live or die. Given the fact that it is a highly controversial opinion, I'm sure he's justified his opinion. While he may not have in the quote you gave, doesn't mean that he hasn't in other statements.

And you don't KNOW that that isn't what Singer means. That's why I said it should be up to the families and that it shouldn't be mandatory.

And by the way, it may be more of a function of the fact that I haven't had a lot of time lately to be here. The last couple of weeks have been a tad stressful.

Actually, no. I just haven't found anyone that needed to be educated about certain issues. And what was I blathering about, anyway? You never answered me in the other thread. Was it me talking about doing my thesis, or was it me debating evolution and other ideas with people what didn't know a heck of a lot about the topics?

Am I saying that the euthanasia of these infants and people should be mandatory? Hell, no. But it should be an option. To me, it's more morally suspect to force these families to keep their children that are experiencing extreme pain or are vegetables alive than it is to allow them to have them humanely euthanized. If it were your child, would you want to put it through extreme pain for the rest of his or her life, never to leave a hospital?

Helen Keller wasn't severely handicapped, IMO. Yes, she was deaf and blind, but she still had the ability to lead a happy, productive life. I'm talking about people and infants who are in constant pain, who WILL NOT be able to lead a happy, productive life. Don't you dare compare me with Hitler. I am not advocating the genocide of an entire race or ethnic group. I am not advocating the deaths of mildly handicapped people. I am not advocating the deaths of the blind or deaf or people born without legs. I am talking about people who are literally vegetables for life and people who live with unending, unmanageable pain. Is it kinder to allow them to go through life or is it kinder to end their (and their family's) pain? I would assume that someone who is pro-life would be pro-life, not pro-pain.

Am I in favor of people being allowed to kill their kids willy-nilly? NO. Am I in favor of people being allowed to humanely euthanize infants that are severely handicapped and that wouldn't have a productive, happy life in the first place? You bet. A painless death is, IMO, better than being forced to live a life of pain.

I am anti-death penalty because you are killing a physically healthy being that still has life to live (albeit imprisoned). IMO, it is incredibly cruel to force a person to live if their life won't be worth living. If my life becomes physically painful to live, I damn well hope someone puts me out of my misery. Being a vegetable from birth isn't life, IMO.

Last time I checked, we weren't living by standards set 150 years ago. All we can do is live according to what we know now. It does no good to look at our actions and say, "Well, lets not do this because it may become illegal in 100 years or 1000 years." Hell, in 100 years, it may be illegal to homeschool your children. Are you going to put your kids in public school now because it may be illegal to homeschool in two or three generations?

I have to say, I don't necessarily disagree with him.

Nope. I just have a very long memory, especially when it comes to hypocrisy.

Oh, I'm sure it is okay with you. And by the way, here's what you said to me: All I had said was this:

No, I'm not. I am in favor of REGULATION of abortion after 21 or 22 weeks. I don't think that ELECTIVE 3rd trimester abortions should be allowed. I have the (usually unpopular) opinion that the life of the mother trumps that of the fetus.