Woo HOO!! Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban!!!!

[gadgetlady 4]

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.

Again, we don't own our children. No one has the right to decide for another.

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.

for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

A "for instance" is not exhaustive. It's an example. And all kids cause suffering to both themselves and to their parents. This isn't just a slippery slope. It's greased with Crisco.

[NVgirl 2]

Can you make a hole in a dike and expect it to be limited to YOUR parameters?

Well now you're just being hypocritical - Why should things be limited to YOUR parameters?

[anonemouse 1]

Again, we don't own our children. No one has the right to decide for another.

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.

A "for instance" is not exhaustive. It's an example.

Yes, it is, but it also gives a pretty clear idea as to what he considers "defective".

And all kids cause suffering to both themselves and to their parents.

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.

[gadgetlady 4]

Well now you're just being hypocritical - Why should things be limited to YOUR parameters?

Actually, I think they should be limited to specific, logical, consistent, scientific parameters. Not how someone "feels", not based on the most emotional point in a woman's life (when she's pregnant), not based on arbitrary medical techniques (viability used to be 35 weeks, now it's down to 21 or 22). Based on the principle of the protection of human life and the definition of when human life begins.

[gadgetlady 4]

And one more thing -- the principle is that no one has the right to decide for another person whether they should live or die.

[gadgetlady 4]

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.

The ability to make medical decisions for our children is different from owning them. If you walked into a doctor's office with your child and told the doctor to amputate your child's arm, they certainly wouldn't grant your request because you have medical authority over your child.

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.

My kids have caused me to suffer from time to time. But they also bring me unmeasurable joy. And they would bring me that same joy if they were "defective". They are precious, precious human beings; just as precious as children with Down Syndrome or Spina Bifida or any other physical or mental defect. I don't gauge whether they have a right to live by whether the happiness they bring exceeds the suffering. And I certainly had no way at their birth to predict whether the one would exceed the other or not.

[anonemouse 1]

Based on the principle of the protection of human life and the definition of when human life begins.

But there is no set definition of when life begins.

And one more thing -- the principle is that no one has the right to decide for another person whether they should live or die.

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).

[anonemouse 1]

The ability to make medical decisions for our children is different from owning them. If you walked into a doctor's office with your child and told the doctor to amputate your child's arm, they certainly wouldn't grant your request because you have medical authority over your child.

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.

And they would bring me that same joy if they were "defective".

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?

I don't gauge whether they have a right to live by whether the happiness they bring exceeds the suffering.

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?

[gadgetlady 4]

But there is no set definition of when life begins.

How about if we look at the criteria for when life ENDS? There are medical criteria for THAT; all we have to do then is reverse them.

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).

Actually, I am anti-death penalty. I wasn't always, though. I was pro-life before I was a Christian (thus violating the "law" that all pro-lifers are Christians), and it was my pro-life beliefs that reversed my thinking on the death penalty. And, BTW, I would never sign a DNR for anyone.

[anonemouse 1]

How about if we look at the criteria for when life ENDS? There are medical criteria for THAT; all we have to do then is reverse them.

It doesn't work that way.

[anonemouse 1]

And, BTW, I would never sign a DNR for anyone.

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.

[gadgetlady 4]

Exactly. Deciding to euthanize a child that is a vegetable or is living in excruciating pain is a medical decision.

It is not. It is a violation of the Hippocratic oath. It is a death sentence without a trial.

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?

I do not have the right to decide for another person whether they live or die. Period. I will not make that decision for another person, and I will not pull the trigger (or the cord, as it were) on another person. The people who know me know better than to ask. My parents put me, their youngest, in charge of them in the case of failing health. My two older brothers were none too happy about it. Why am I in charge? Because my parents can trust me not to off them. And so can my husband and so can my children.

[gadgetlady 4]

It doesn't work that way.

Well maybe it should. Seems pretty cut and dried, logical, absent of arbitrary criteria.

[anonemouse 1]

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.

[Carlene 12]

And, BTW, I would never sign a DNR for anyone.

GL....never say "never". There are circumstances that I'm betting could change your mind. End-stage Cancer, for one. Some types are not so bad, but then again, some are unbelievably painful.