The sanctity of life

[godfry n. glad]

In the Sexuality forum, in a discussion over the appropriateness of male attentions to underage, but pubescent girls, Beth made the following comment:

To me, a person's worth is based on the simple fact that they are alive and are human beings.

In the context, I understand it's usage, but it smacks of the "sanctity of life" argument that all life is valuable, merely by being "alive". I'm not sure she meant it that way, but it does intimate that.

I have problems with the "sanctity of life" argument when it devolves into saving life, no matter what the condition of that life.

Does "life" trump all things?

godfry

[Beth]

I believe that I am no more valuable than any other human being on this planet. So if I value my life, well, all others on this planet deserve for me to value their lives as well. That's it in a nutshell for me...

[beyelzu]

life has value in my oh so humble opinion.

but quality of life is also important,

I support people's right to end their own life also.

I dont think life trumps all other rights.

[Beth]

I believe that each individual has the right to end one's life. But when I spoke of valuing life, I am speaking more in terms of the individual.

If you read my statement, I say, " To me, a person's worth is based on the simple fact they are alive and are human beings."

I cannot see how my statement is qualifying as a sancity of life argument, to be quite honest. I am not entering some pro-life vs. pro-choice area, nor am I saying that euthanasia should not be a right to those who suffer.

I believe that all humans deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It suprises me that people might object to the fact that I value human life.

[ApostateAbe]

It is simply the nature of human beings to protect and nurture other human beings. There is no argument that can justify our value of human life, though it is the basis of most of our other values.

[livius drusus]

Does life have to trump all things in order to have instrinsic value?

[Godless Dave]

Of course life doesn't have any intrinsic value. Hell, nothing has intrinsic value, since "value" is subjective. I choose to value others' lives because A) it seems right and B) I want other people to value mine - whether or not I contribute anything to society.

[godfry n. glad]

Okay...

So, a child is born with debilitating handicaps, so debilitating that they will never live anywhere near a normal life. Indeed, it is likely they will live very short lives with little interaction with the world around them, other than the life support mechanisms which keep them alive.

Should those life-support mechanisms be removed, the likelihood of the cessation of life is very high and would be relatively soon after such removal.

Here's my question: Is it moral to keep these "live humans" alive? Keep in mind that the cost of their care is beyond the ability of all but the richest of families and hence, that cost is shifted to the public, through public funding or increased costs of other health care services.

Also, keep in mind that the funding expended to keep these severely handicapped individuals alive cannot be used for any other purpose...so there is a HUGE opportunity cost for keeping these "live humans" alive. Those funds could be used for preventive health care measures that would reduce the reliance upon emergency health care....or any number of other beneficial medical or health care problems....

It is the "sanctity of life" which keeps these individuals on life support systems, usually at the request of the family.

I do not think this is "right"...I think it's an abuse of the "sanctity of life" which degrades the life of many, while merely extending an already attenuated life that will not ever be able to enjoy that life.

godfry

[Beth]

I realize that in much of the world, human life is worth very little, people are devalued, rights suppressed or non-existent. But when people seem to so devalue people, the suffering and travesties seem to be so much greater.

I find it frustrating that there are endentured servants working in the US, working on farms and even in sweat shops. I find it horrible that women and children are kidnapped in the Ukraine and around the world and placed into endentured servitude as prostitutes or slaves. I find it upsetting that a father can sell his daughter for $300.00 to an old man to be fucked and used as chattel. I value human life because I see that placing value on people is the only way to end the suffering that we do to one another.

I associate certain rights that are attached to an individual, simply because they took that first gulp of air. Those rights are not for me to argue in this thread, nor do I want to speculate. I did not start a thread about life support or pulling the plug.

[Godless Dave]

Right, but you [Godfry] are the one who brought up the phrase "sanctity of life".

Beth's statement that "a person's worth is based on the simple fact that they are alive and are human beings" was in response to another poster's assertion that the worth of teenage girls was based on whether they could stimulate his mind or provide him sexual gratification. You're taking Beth's statement and talking about a different argument.

In the example you give, the decision on whether to provide artificial life support involves questions of quality of life and life expectancy for the child and the extent of the artificial life support it would need. This is not so much a question of its "worth" as a human being, but its experience as a human being.

[dave_a]

Okay...

So, is a child born with debilitating handicaps, so debilitating that they will never live anywhere near a normal life. Indeed, it is likely they will live very short lives with little interaction with the world around them, other than the life support mechanisms which keep them alive.

Should those life-support mechanisms be removed, the likelihood of the cessation of life is very high and would be relatively soon after such removal.

Here's my question: Is it moral to keep these "live humans" alive?

When I hear the phrase 'sanctity of life' I think religious pro lifers who believe God is the giver of life and he is therefore the only legitimate taker of life. If one is suffering, it is part of God's mysterious will and it is therefore sinful to take one's own life or for another to take said life even for humanitarian reasons. Taking life is the sole domain of the deity.

To value life isn't to view things this way. In the case of those who have very low qualities of life I believe they have every right to choose to cease living. For kids who are not legally and sometimes not mentally able to make such decisions in a fully informed manner then I think the best option is to hand the decision making authority over to parents or legal guardians.

So, I don't think Beth was talking about the religious/pro-life kind of 'sanctity of life' at all, just respecting life and one's right to it. This type of respect for life doesn't preclude things like euthanasia

[godfry n. glad]

Right, but you [Godfry] are the one who brought up the phrase "sanctity of life".

Yep. And I acknowledged that in my OP.

Beth's statement that "a person's worth is based on the simple fact that they are alive and are human beings" was in response to another poster's assertion that the worth of teenage girls was based on whether they could stimulate his mind or provide him sexual gratification. You're taking Beth's statement and talking about a different argument.

Agreed. I intimated as much in my OP....and I moved it here and framed it outside of that discussion. That was my intent. I am taking Beth's statement, acknowledging that she used it in a variant context and alluded to my understanding that this attitude underlies other prevalent opinions, specifically, that associated with the "sanctity of life."

In the example you give, the decision on whether to provide artificial life support involves questions of quality of life and life expectancy for the child and the extent of the artificial life support it would need. This is not so much a question of its "worth" as a human being, but its experience as a human being.

Yet...All those issues, "quality of life, life expectancy for the child, and the extent of artificial life support it would need," all lead to issues of the "worth" of the life.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

When I hear the phrase 'sanctity of life' I think religious pro lifers who believe God is the giver of life and he is therefore the only legitimate taker of life. If one is suffering, it is part of God's mysterious will and it is therefore sinful to take one's own life or for another to take said life even for humanitarian reasons. Taking life is the sole domain of the deity.

Yet, the concept underlies and animates the ongoing discussions of capital punishment, where it may not have any religious content.

To value life isn't to view things this way. In the case of those who have very low qualities of life I believe they have every right to choose to cease living. For kids who are not legally and sometimes not mentally able to make such decisions in a fully informed manner then I think the best option is to hand the decision making authority over to parents or legal guardians.

Yet, I don't think it sufficient. These parents and legal guardians are given the power to extend and maintain the lives of these severely debilitated infants and do so regularly....often because they do not have to bear the cost of doing so....because they believe in the "sanctity of life".

So, I don't think Beth was talking about the religious/pro-life kind of 'sanctity of life' at all, just respecting life and one's right to it. This type of respect for life doesn't preclude things like euthanasia

Nor did I think she was. I stated in my OP that I understood the context in which she used it. However, that attitude also informs the 'sanctity of life' argument...in my opinion.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

So.... I guess this is so touchy nobody wants to talk about it, eh?

Then this thread is dead.

godfry

[Cool Hand]

So.... I guess this is so touchy nobody wants to talk about it, eh?

Then this thread is dead.

godfry

Actually, I'll breathe some life back into it on the ironic premise that its life is sacrosanct.

I happen to agree with your apparent stance, Godfry.

I think you are right that it is easy for the parents of a pre-emie baby or one with severe mental or physical deficits such that the baby is not likely to live more than a few months and will have a very poor quality of life to overvalue the child's life and spend inordinate amounts of money and resources keeping it alive. You are right in that they are not paying for such care directly. Instead, the costs are shifted to all of us. If the costs came directly out of their pockets, I suspect life wouldn't be quite so precious. Witness how many people will have their beloved family pets "put down" when the cost to have a needed surgery exceeds the amount the family is willing to pay (Of course pet health insurance is now available, but its use is minuscule compared to health insurance coverage and usage for humans).

On the other end of the life cycle, we have a grossly disportionate amount of medical resources devoted to elder care. As a demographic group, persons in their 70s and 80s require exponentially more medical resources, including prescription drugs, than those of any other age cohort. Many of these people have a quality of life that is little more than marking time before death comes calling. The younger, healthier working persons are subsidizing the older persons' health care. As a result, the younger persons have an ever -shrinking take home pay.

This is a political mess. On both sides of the aisle, Presidential candidates and Congresspersons and Senators race to express their support for a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. This is ludicrous from a demographic perspective. This is nothing but robbing the young workers to support the elderly retired persons. It sounds great to help out grandma and grandpa, but it's a huge tax increase for young working families.

The cold, hard truth is that grossly disproportionate medical costs for the elderly yield only marginal improvements in the quality of life for persons with advanced coronary disease and other debilitating illnesses that affect the majority of persons who live well into their 70s and 80s. The increasing toll that vast spending on medical care for such persons is taking and will continue to take on the younger working families will eventually cause a backlash. The lives of grandma and grandpa might not be so precious when they are taking food out of junior's mouth.

Because the leading edge of the Baby Boomers is approaching senior status, and because they will eventually be disproportionate overconsumers of health care, the third-party payer system as it presently exists, particularly Medicare, will necessarily have to yield to other payment systems. It is little different from the inevitable Social Security crisis. Simple math yields the result that there is a breaking point beyond which fewer and fewer workers can no longer support net recipients of government benefits or private health insurance benefits.

Criticizing or proposing to scale down Social Security and Medicare is the third rail in national politics. The AARP is the most powerful voting lobby today. Due to the post-war baby boom, its power and ranks will continue to swell for the next two decades. The generations following the Baby Boomers simply cannot satisfy the voracious appetite for entitlements that the Baby Boomers will undoubtedly exhibit. This is the greatest threat to the long-term economic well being of the U.S.

It is unfortunate that it is taboo in our modern society even to consider or suggest that perhaps we should engage in more stringent medical care triage. We should start on one end with those with no real chance for survival, such as the severely mentally and physically handicapped babies with a life expentancy of less than two years. On the other end, we should stop spending inordinate amounts for medical care for those with advanced heart disease in their 70s and 80s. Many of these folks have multiple surgeries and consume vast quantities of prescription medications daily. Their medical expenses dwarf those of persons in their 20s through 40s.

Doing both of those things would yield a vast savings in medical care expenses and would slow the rate of stealthy tax raises that keep recurring in the form of increased social security and medicare taxes. They would result in a proportionate increase in the quality of life for those best positioned to derive enjoyment from it. They would substantially reduce the financial stresses and strains the overburdened working middle class presently suffers, especially when its children reach college age.

Cool Hand

[The Lone Ranger]

I understand that a few years ago a man got into St. Peter's with a sledgehammer and tried to take a swing at Michelangelo's Pieta.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/citta/Bs-Pieta.jpg

A guard shot the man, though he survived. Was the guard justified in shooting him? Obviously, I'd hate to be in such a situation, where I have to choose between a hunk of marble and a man's life, but I'm inclined to think that the guard made the right choice.

It wasn't just a hunk of marble, after all; it was a priceless and irreplacable treasure. Still, it bothers me a bit to think that I might be willing to place a higher value on an inanimate object than on the life of a fellow human being. Seems to set a bad precedent, somehow.

Cheers,

Michael

[godfry n. glad]

Well...

You raise a very interesting question, Michael.

I'm not sure I can answer it. It seems to me that there are individuals who do not "deserve" to live. The cost of maintaining their lives is exhorbitant in terms of the amount of resources available. I can give you my example of why I support the death penalty, if you'd like.

And, Cool Hand...an excellent point. But I disagree, to a point.

There is a qualitative difference in the lives being compared. The 70 to 80 year old has that amount of experience and wisdom to impart. Pharmaceuticals are overpriced and that's where you should start on the cost of longevity. But I think you misconstrue who has the power in the decisions when it reaches the point of the excessive cost option to maintain life. I think in most of the cases where that decision is made, it is not made by the person whose life is thereby extended. It's made by his family members. My impression of living with the elderly is that most do not want to extend their lives with heroic measures. I understand the finality of death is often the result of the dying choosing to not take nourishment. My father consciously did so. He removed is intervenous feeding tubes. Several times. He made sure that I was prompted not to interfere. Several years in advance.

But, otherwise, I'll agree. I'm fifty and a recent orphan (as well as widower). I'm most likely gonna check out before you. I use a fair amount of pharmaceuticals, myself. I'm hypertensive and diabetic. A prime candidate for heart attack and/or stroke. Hot fun. (By the way, I knew none of this before I was 48...and how old are you?) I saw what 10 years as an invalid due to a stroke is like. Fairly close up. I'd check out on my own, if that happened to me. I guess you could say that I'd be real interested in your cut points, young man. :whup:

The newborn child, who has no identity to any other than his mother and maybe, if the world is lucky, a father. If it is so severely handicapped that it can only maintain life on life support....and there is no possibility that improvement would be anything other than better life support machinery. There is life, but no possible future. Why expend resources that could be used to make others' lives better?

The difference is a conscious individual. The child cannot make the decision. Often the elder can, and should. But there are incompetencies, I understand. I know those, too.

I, do, however, think we might want to reconsider the use of life support systems. Who gets it, and why? But it does create the question of how much life is worth.

Which seems to be a very uncomfortable question for people to deal with.

godfry

[Sweetie]

So.... I guess this is so touchy nobody wants to talk about it, eh?

Then this thread is dead.

godfry

Actually, I'll breathe some life back into it on the ironic premise that its life is sacrosanct.

I happen to agree with your apparent stance, Godfry.

I think you are right that it is easy for the parents of a pre-emie baby or one with severe mental or physical deficits such that the baby is not likely to live more than a few months and will have a very poor quality of life to overvalue the child's life and spend inordinate amounts of money and resources keeping it alive. You are right in that they are not paying for such care directly. Instead, the costs are shifted to all of us. If the costs came directly out of their pockets, I suspect life wouldn't be quite so precious. Witness how many people will have their beloved family pets "put down" when the cost to have a needed surgery exceeds the amount the family is willing to pay (Of course pet health insurance is now available, but its use is minuscule compared to health insurance coverage and usage for humans).

On the other end of the life cycle, we have a grossly disportionate amount of medical resources devoted to elder care. As a demographic group, persons in their 70s and 80s require exponentially more medical resources, including prescription drugs, than those of any other age cohort. Many of these people have a quality of life that is little more than marking time before death comes calling. The younger, healthier working persons are subsidizing the older persons' health care. As a result, the younger persons have an ever -shrinking take home pay.

This is a political mess. On both sides of the aisle, Presidential candidates and Congresspersons and Senators race to express their support for a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. This is ludicrous from a demographic perspective. This is nothing but robbing the young workers to support the elderly retired persons. It sounds great to help out grandma and grandpa, but it's a huge tax increase for young working families.

The cold, hard truth is that grossly disproportionate medical costs for the elderly yield only marginal improvements in the quality of life for persons with advanced coronary disease and other debilitating illnesses that affect the majority of persons who live well into their 70s and 80s. The increasing toll that vast spending on medical care for such persons is taking and will continue to take on the younger working families will eventually cause a backlash. The lives of grandma and grandpa might not be so precious when they are taking food out of junior's mouth.

Because the leading edge of the Baby Boomers is approaching senior status, and because they will eventually be disproportionate overconsumers of health care, the third-party payer system as it presently exists, particularly Medicare, will necessarily have to yield to other payment systems. It is little different from the inevitable Social Security crisis. Simple math yields the result that there is a breaking point beyond which fewer and fewer workers can no longer support net recipients of government benefits or private health insurance benefits.

Criticizing or proposing to scale down Social Security and Medicare is the third rail in national politics. The AARP is the most powerful voting lobby today. Due to the post-war baby boom, its power and ranks will continue to swell for the next two decades. The generations following the Baby Boomers simply cannot satisfy the voracious appetite for entitlements that the Baby Boomers will undoubtedly exhibit. This is the greatest threat to the long-term economic well being of the U.S.

It is unfortunate that it is taboo in our modern society even to consider or suggest that perhaps we should engage in more stringent medical care triage.

Doing both of those things would yield a vast savings in medical care expenses and would slow the rate of stealthy tax raises that keep recurring in the form of increased social security and medicare taxes. They would result in a proportionate increase in the quality of life for those best positioned to derive enjoyment from it. They would substantially reduce the financial stresses and strains the overburdened working middle class presently suffers, especially when its children reach college age.

Cool Hand



-The problem is the middle class seems to be getting by well enough considering when their parents who are elderly were younger and perhaps lived through the depression, having food on the table was a feat. "Overburdened middle class". I think we would have different definitions of what overburdened means, I think middle class indicates that they are comfortable, and I think you reduce the value of human life down to money. I think that's a major problem, and I think that's a major reason why those who value human life don't necessarily consider the cost because money has a tendency for many to outweigh any other considerations and I would say once it can be reduced to that, like all the monsters of the past, many take it and run with it. I don't want anybody to have that kind of power to determine whether or not my life is valueable depending on how much it costs to sustain my life. To me for someone to have that power and license to determine that, like the government, the courts, etc., that's the type of power that corrupts. It's a problem with commercialism, it's a problem with a commercialist society. The value of human life to me can't be reduced to money. Your answers are exactly why so many fight against your line of thinking, because who knows when you will come under the knife.

Now, I agree with your arguement that the younger generation will be unable to support the Baby Boomers when they become elderly just by the sheer numbers of them, but why is that? Why are there so few of us, why isn't there enough of us to support our economy? Because there is too many of them, or because we as a society have decided that having nicer houses is more important that having children? Is the solution kill those or take away any hope for those who have less chance because it costs too much or.......have more children, but then you might say that that costs too much too. More children in families generally means less money for the family that rears them, and more money for the economy and it also means more moeny from the family for their care when they are older. There will always be a cost, it's all so interconnected.

[LadyShea]

These parents and legal guardians are given the power to extend and maintain the lives of these severely debilitated infants and do so regularly....often because they do not have to bear the cost of doing so....because they believe in the "sanctity of life".

I don't think it's about some abstract "sanctity of life" in all of these cases. Parents often start loving their kids before they are even born, they have made plans, they have daydreamed of that kid's life...it's not easy to just say "oh this thing is worthless because it's sick" after carrying it for 9 months.

[godfry n. glad]

The value of human life to me can't be reduced to money. Your answers are exactly why so many fight against your line of thinking, because who knows when you will come under the knife.

Can the value of human life be measured in other human lives?

My point is that medical triage goes on all the time, but for some reason, triage is not taken into consideration in many cases where it should. Why?

And, human life is reduced to money on a daily basis. Talk to any insurance underwriter or visit any courtroom where damages for a lost life are adjudicated.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

These parents and legal guardians are given the power to extend and maintain the lives of these severely debilitated infants and do so regularly....often because they do not have to bear the cost of doing so....because they believe in the "sanctity of life".

I don't think it's about some abstract "sanctity of life" in all of these cases. Parents often start loving their kids before they are even born, they have made plans, they have daydreamed of that kid's life...it's not easy to just say "oh this thing is worthless because it's sick" after carrying it for 9 months.

Nope, it's not. But when faced with the realities that their newborn will never (and I mean NEVER) realize a subnormal life, much less a normal one or any of those dreams the parents had for it, why do these parents choose to keep the lump of protoplasm "alive"?

godfry

[LadyShea]

Nope, it's not. But when faced with the realities that their newborn will never (and I mean NEVER) realize a subnormal life, much less a normal one or any of those dreams the parents had for it, why do these parents choose to keep the lump of protoplasm "alive"?

godfry

I don't think it happens as often as you think. These days, devastating abnormalities are usually diagnosed prior to birth and many, many parents choose to abort. I know one lady who got pregnant after IVF....she paid thousands of dollars getting pregnant and depserately wanted a child. It was diagnosed at 18 weeks with trisomy 18 and she aborted.

I am willing to bet that a large number of those that choose to go ahead with the pregnancy and birth, knowing the baby has a dire disease like you are discussing, and/or go to great lengths to keep these babies alive, are usually very religious and under the hope/assumption/delusion that God will provide a miracle for them. They simply can't or won't accept that there is no hope or chance.

Even if they aren't religious, they may be too emotionally distraught to see the hoplessness of it, and cling to that life in the hopes that science can "fix it"

[viscousmemories]

This is an interesting subject, godfry. I don't believe that life is sacred because I don't believe in a supernatural essence that transcends the physical body, and I don't think the fact that something is 'alive' makes it automatically more valuable. Hence as far as I'm concerned nothing in the universe (plant, animal, mineral or gas) is inherently worth any more or less than anything else.

There seems to be some blurring in this thread around the definition of value, though. As Ladyshea pointed out, there are other reasons besides a belief in the sanctity of life that a mother may choose to preserve the life of her severely disabled baby. On the other hand someone has to pay for that care and if the burden is to be put on the taxpayers, then I think it's reasonable to question what benefit to society that investment will yield.

As an aside, have you ever noticed how much our society glorifies disabled people sometimes? At the risk of sounding callous, I've long found it odd that there are so frequently books, television shows and even movies making heroes out of ordinary people who have overcome one or another physical disability to accomplish... well, nothing particularly notable. More specifically, nothing that someone with normal physical abilities would be lauded for. Seriously I'm not demeaning their personal struggle, but everybody struggles to some degree or another. I would just expect that societal accolades would be reserved for people who have actually made a substantial contribution to society.

[godfry n. glad]

Nope, it's not. But when faced with the realities that their newborn will never (and I mean NEVER) realize a subnormal life, much less a normal one or any of those dreams the parents had for it, why do these parents choose to keep the lump of protoplasm "alive"?

godfry

I don't think it happens as often as you think. These days, devastating abnormalities are usually diagnosed prior to birth and many, many parents choose to abort. I know one lady who got pregnant after IVF....she paid thousands of dollars getting pregnant and depserately wanted a child. It was diagnosed at 18 weeks with trisomy 18 and she aborted.

Actually, it happens a lot more often than I would have thought. My wife was a ward clerk/medical transcriptionist in a hospital labor & delivery unit, a pediatric intensive care unit, and a neonatology unit over the span of 15 years. Her experience in the PedsICU is what animated my discussion. According to her, at any given time there are as many as eight to ten of these unsavable infants on life support systems in the hospital. That's just one hospital. I think we can assume that the same is occurring in thousands of hospitals nationwide. That's millions (if not billions) of dollars of care being expended on lives that will NEVER improve.

Somehow, I think those funds would be better spent preventing those occurances, rather than treating them.


I am willing to bet that a large number of those that choose to go ahead with the pregnancy and birth, knowing the baby has a dire disease like you are discussing, and/or go to great lengths to keep these babies alive, are usually very religious and under the hope/assumption/delusion that God will provide a miracle for them. They simply can't or won't accept that there is no hope or chance.

Ignorance and religiousity together would be my bet. I doubt that too many prospective parents who have access to prenatal care have these types of problems, and when they do they make more informed decisions. It still happens, yes, but most of the sources of these types of infants are those who had NO prenatal care...ignorant (meaning usually poor and migrant) and/or drug addled.
(Yes...crack babies are a large source of this stuff.) These families are those least equipped and able to deal with the economic burdens of a severely disabled child.

Even if they aren't religious, they may be too emotionally distraught to see the hoplessness of it, and cling to that life in the hopes that science can "fix it"

Yet... It is my understanding that a realistic appraisal of the child's hopes can be provided by the health care providers. Very soon after birth. There should be no illusions as to the realities of whether science can "fix it."

godfry

[Sweetie]

I have two questions:

1. Is dismembering a body any different than taking a computer apart?
2. How many who speak about what a parent should do for a disabled child, how many of those are parents?

It sounds to me like money and technicalities in the minds of some should outweigh what many commonly feel and consider to be their humanity. Who can really do that and not suffer and cause suffering for it because they are human? You can talk about "them", those disabled children, always them, it hasn't happened to you, they "should" do this or that. It's not that simple, it's easy to talk when it's not you. I don't think you can reduce their decisions to religiosity or ignorance, 9 times out of 10 I would bet it would simply be their humanity. Now, one might argue that it is more humane to let the child die and that is what humanity should do, but in the perspective of those whom it has happened to, like I said, it's easy to talk and why should they accept what others consider to be humane? What if they don't? In a world of subjectivity, who could dictate to them how it is or isn't, how it should or shouldn't be, what they should or shouldn't do?

To me what people have been saying can be reduced to a sort of survival of the fittest arguement, but survival of the moneyed to, and that some need to be sacrificed for the collective, that age old question, would you kill an innocent to save the life of thousands, could you do it? Would you kill a hundren innocents to save the world? Could you do it? How does one gauge what is moral or immoral? Money is the worst way to me to do that.

[Goliath]

I understand that a few years ago a man got into St. Peter's with a sledgehammer and tried to take a swing at Michelangelo's Pieta.

<snip picture>

A guard shot the man, though he survived. Was the guard justified in shooting him?



Hmmm, I may regret this, but.....

Well, that depends on whether the guard was personally threatened. Would the man have attacked the guard with the sledgehammer if the guard had stood between him and the statue? Then yes, shooting in self defense would seem to be the right thing to do. On the other hand, potentially killing someone over a statue? No. I think the guard should go on trial for attempted murder.

[dave_a]

I have two questions:

1. Is dismembering a body any different than taking a computer apart?
2. How many who speak about what a parent should do for a disabled child, how many of those are parents?



1. Yes if the body is dead.
2. I am a parent who has a child born with heart defects. He required open heart surgery to correct otherwise he would have died. The surgery took 10 hours and his heart wouldn't start afterwards. After the 2nd attempt to start his heart failed a nurse told us a 3rd attempt was about be be made, but if it failed our son would be put on life support. We were told the odds of his heart ever starting while on life support were virtually nill. It would be up to us to determine when/if to pull the plug. Things worked out well enough and his heart started on the 3rd attempt.

However, while we were waiting to hear if it worked we discussed what to do if it didn't. To say we were beside ourselves with grief would be an understatement, but we both came to the agreement we would leave him on life support for 3 days, just in case there was a 'miracle' and after that the life support would be turned off.

It seemed to be a rational decision.

This isn't to say I can support any entity other than parents making this kind of decision, I certainly do not want "society" or government to make it.

This is the kind of thing I fear with some forms of socialized medicine. Today I have private insurance that covers this sort of thing. They certainly wouldn't pay for my son to be on life support for an indefinite period of time, but the choice is ultimately mine as to when the life support gets removed to the extent I can afford it after the insurance runs out.

When I hear stories of the elderly not getting certain treatments due to rationing and figuring they don't rate it due to their age that scares me. There is no recourse and paying out of pocket seems to be disallowed in some systems to get the additional care. But, that's another discussion.

[Sweetie]

Well, that depends on whether the guard was personally threatened. Would the man have attacked the guard with the sledgehammer if the guard had stood between him and the statue? Then yes, shooting in self defense would seem to be the right thing to do. On the other hand, potentially killing someone over a statue? No. I think the guard should go on trial for attempted murder.

-The principle of the thing though is basically a sort of stealing. Should anybody be allowed to steal from shopowners, should we react with force? My answer to the principle of it is yes. I would say that if stealing were willy-nilly then chaos and I don't think that would be great for the economy as well not really great for personal safety. If I have a painting worth a million dollars, what should happen to the person who threw it in the fire, and what should I be able to do to protect my property when they are on property that is not theirs, and are attempting to steal or destroy property that is not theirs?

[Sweetie]

1. Yes if the body is dead.

-aha, but I'm asking if the body was alive. For those who don't value life over anything else, why is it any different to dismember a living creature or a computer? I'm just wondering the possible responses to that.

2. I am a parent who has a child born with heart defects. He required open heart surgery to correct otherwise he would have died. The surgery took 10 hours and his heart wouldn't start afterwards. After the 2nd attempt to start his heart failed a nurse told us a 3rd attempt was about be be made, but if it failed our son would be put on life support. We were told the odds of his heart ever starting while on life support were virtually nill. It would be up to us to determine when/if to pull the plug. Things worked out well enough and his heart started on the 3rd attempt.

However, while we were waiting to hear if it worked we discussed what to do if it didn't. To say we were beside ourselves with grief would be an understatement, but we both came to the agreement we would leave him on life support for 3 days, just in case there was a 'miracle' and after that the life support would be turned off.

It seemed to be a rational decision.

This isn't to say I can support any entity other than parents making this kind of decision, I certainly do not want "society" or government to make it.

This is the kind of thing I fear with some forms of socialized medicine. Today I have private insurance that covers this sort of thing. They certainly wouldn't pay for my son to be on life support for an indefinite period of time, but the choice is ultimately mine as to when the life support gets removed to the extent I can afford it after the insurance runs out.
:sadcheer:
When I hear stories of the elderly not getting certain treatments due to rationing and figuring they don't rate it due to their age that scares me. There is no recourse and paying out of pocket seems to be disallowed in some systems to get the additional care. But, that's another discussion.

-ah, what a story! I hope things are fairly good for you guys now.

As far as "pulling the plug", I think if someone is living solely on life support and they wouldn't be alive fifty years ago, not just a breathing machine for those with emphysema, not just dialyses but immobile with heart pumping machines, breathing machines, all sorts of machines and no activity and/or no brain activity, etc., then I'm for pulling the plug.

[seebs]

Hmm.

I think in practice, "sanctity of life" comes on something of a continuum. I like the Orthodox Jewish perspective, for instance, which teaches that an unborn baby is a potential person, rather than an actual person. This leaves them with a clear teaching against "convenience" abortions, but no objection to medically-useful abortions, which is about where I would draw the line anyway, on instinct.

I think more generally, life is better considered as a product of quality and time than as a single entity. Making someone's life permanently miserable is a grave harm, too.

[viscousmemories]

-aha, but I'm asking if the body was alive. For those who don't value life over anything else, why is it any different to dismember a living creature or a computer? I'm just wondering the possible responses to that.
Well I came close to that by saying I don't think anything in the universe is inherently more valuable than anything else, but I didn't mean to say that I don't personally value life over anything else; I do. Like many humans (I think) I tend to assign value to things based on the level of empathy I have for them. So I value other humans over rocks, because our physical similarity means I can empathize much more with other humans than I can with rocks. However as far as I'm concerned both are merely different compositions of matter, and neither is inherently any more valuable than the other.

[Goliath]

-The principle of the thing though is basically a sort of stealing. Should anybody be allowed to steal from shopowners, should we react with force? My answer to the principle of it is yes. I would say that if stealing were willy-nilly then chaos and I don't think that would be great for the economy as well not really great for personal safety. If I have a painting worth a million dollars, what should happen to the person who threw it in the fire, and what should I be able to do to protect my property when they are on property that is not theirs, and are attempting to steal or destroy property that is not theirs?

:deepsigh: Why can't I learn to keep my mouth shut around here?

Where, oh where did I mention anything about letting thieves steal anything they want willy-nilly?

[godfry n. glad]

I have two questions:

1. Is dismembering a body any different than taking a computer apart?
2. How many who speak about what a parent should do for a disabled child, how many of those are parents?



1. Yes if the body is dead.
2. I am a parent who has a child born with heart defects. He required open heart surgery to correct otherwise he would have died. The surgery took 10 hours and his heart wouldn't start afterwards. After the 2nd attempt to start his heart failed a nurse told us a 3rd attempt was about be be made, but if it failed our son would be put on life support. We were told the odds of his heart ever starting while on life support were virtually nill. It would be up to us to determine when/if to pull the plug. Things worked out well enough and his heart started on the 3rd attempt.

However, while we were waiting to hear if it worked we discussed what to do if it didn't. To say we were beside ourselves with grief would be an understatement, but we both came to the agreement we would leave him on life support for 3 days, just in case there was a 'miracle' and after that the life support would be turned off.

It seemed to be a rational decision.

I'd say that seems pretty rational to me, except for the wait for the miracle thing. If that three days was to consider all alternatives and weigh the implications in cost and pain and suffering, then I would think that would be prudent.

I have close friends who experienced the very same thing. Their child is now 12 and suffers from cerebal palsy and mental retardation due to the loss of oxygen to his brain during his early weeks. They hope he will be able to develop a skill, but he may not. They have dedicated their lives to this boy and not yet turned to any kind of government support. I think the boy has a chance to have a decent life. I have no objection. I think they are saints.

However...I have heard of children who are born effectively without brains. Nothing but the bare minimum to keep the body running, a brainstem. No advanced cerebral development at all. (Q: Is it human?) Some children with these severe disabilities, who will never be free of some kind of invasive life support system merely to stay alive, are kept alive for weeks or months. These, and some bearly better and able to survive without direct life support, but requiring constant care and who probably will for the remainder of their short lives, often have no such family. Instead, they have an impoverished and drug-addled teenage mother, who doesn't know the father and has absolutely no frikkin' idea what prenatal care is. Yet, the mother can decide, often with her parent (the infant's grandparent), to keep the child alive...because it's a life. And it will be. And you and I foot the hideous cost. Either in taxes, or increased health care costs. Or litigation.

Still...making the determination of who should benefit and who does not. That's a tough decision.


This isn't to say I can support any entity other than parents making this kind of decision, I certainly do not want "society" or government to make it.

This is the kind of thing I fear with some forms of socialized medicine. Today I have private insurance that covers this sort of thing. They certainly wouldn't pay for my son to be on life support for an indefinite period of time, but the choice is ultimately mine as to when the life support gets removed to the extent I can afford it after the insurance runs out.

Although I don't fear this with socialized medicine (because it's already done with private insurance). You have insurance that covers lifetime intensive care for an infant/child? I think you'd better check your policy or talk to your insurance provider if you think you do (and it's obvious you don't). And yes, I do trust your choice with your family and your insurance. And your personal finances are your business.

But that's not what I'm talking about.

When I hear stories of the elderly not getting certain treatments due to rationing and figuring they don't rate it due to their age that scares me. There is no recourse and paying out of pocket seems to be disallowed in some systems to get the additional care. But, that's another discussion.

You bet it's scary. Have you dealt with an elder parent and their advanced dementia and security care? I have. I feel absolutely lucky that I found a decent place to care for my father. I've seen what's out there and how many, many older folks are abandoned. Warehoused. Getting old can be a shitty thing in our culture.

I think rationing is a reality (socialized medicine or NOT) we will have to face. The challenge is how to most equitably and compassionately do it.

I personally think that socialized medicine has its benefits, particularly in terms of basic public health and family health. Placing a base-line of minimum regular health care for all would cut the need, and thence the cost, for a lot of other things later. The costly things are the newer treatments in whatever field and the exceedingly complex procedures at the edge of medicine. Rationing there would never exclude any financial elite. It would exclude those with limited financial resources....just as it does right now with uninsured individuals...usually. For most of us.

I've been cared for by a socialized system, and I found it more effective and of less cost to me (out-of-pocket) than my private insured care here in a U.S. state.

It was an isolated an relatively minor incident (pneumonia), but I was impressed.

godfry

[Sweetie]

:deepsigh: Why can't I learn to keep my mouth shut around here?

Where, oh where did I mention anything about letting thieves steal anything they want willy-nilly?

-lol, you said:

" On the other hand, potentially killing someone over a statue? No. I think the guard should go on trial for attempted murder."

-It's not just a statue, it's a valuable piece of property. In that case, say I have a picture that's worth a million dollars, if someone purposely damages that picture, they are stealing a million dollars from me. Of course a life is worth more than a statue, than a million dollars, however the principle that underlies it all, preventing theft by use of force is also valueable to society and not just in self-defense, proactive measures to prevent further and possible more dangerous attempts by other.

[Sweetie]

Well I came close to that by saying I don't think anything in the universe is inherently more valuable than anything else, but I didn't mean to say that I don't personally value life over anything else; I do. Like many humans (I think) I tend to assign value to things based on the level of empathy I have for them. So I value other humans over rocks, because our physical similarity means I can empathize much more with other humans than I can with rocks. However as far as I'm concerned both are merely different compositions of matter, and neither is inherently any more valuable than the other.


You do personally value other humans though you know intellectually there is no real reason to do so and it's just a way to live, not how things really are?

My further question would be, if you don't empathize with someone, is it ok to dismember that person? If there is no such thing as value, and you only value what you empathize with, and others might empathize with different things and value them, in this case, can you tell anyone that it is wrong even to kill? If this one doesn't value his children, and he kills them, and you only value them irrationally, on what grounds can you determine a right or wrong action even in the case of murder?

[Sweetie]

Hmm.

I think in practice, "sanctity of life" comes on something of a continuum. I like the Orthodox Jewish perspective, for instance, which teaches that an unborn baby is a potential person, rather than an actual person. This leaves them with a clear teaching against "convenience" abortions, but no objection to medically-useful abortions, which is about where I would draw the line anyway, on instinct.

-When does a potential person in their position, become a person?

To be or not to be, that is the question.

[Beth]

IMO, when they are born, or at least can live viably out of the womb. Does that mean I like abortion? No. But I think that a potential person is only a potential for a human being until the child actually is born.

I like how the laws currently stand in this state, that third trimester abortions are reserved for medically necessary abortions, but I believe they should extend it to include exceptions for rape and incest as well.

[godfry n. glad]

IMO, when they are born, or at least can live viably out of the womb. Does that mean I like abortion? No. But I think that a potential person is only a potential for a human being until the child actually is born.

I like how the laws currently stand in this state, that third trimester abortions are reserved for medically necessary abortions, but I believe they should extend it to include exceptions for rape and incest as well.

"..or can live viably out of the womb." What do you mean by "viably"?

Medicine is saving premature infants earlier and earlier. If 36-37 weeks is term, I believe my wife told me that medicine is now capable of keeping alive a 23, or even 22, week infant "viable" outside of the womb. As to what kind of life that premie can live, I don't know. How much of the development of the nascent human can be done outside of the appropriate nuturing medium - the uterus? Would there not be some deliterious effects upon the "survivor"?

Many things are done in medicine now, because they can be done. I wonder whether something can be done means it should be done. And when.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

Well I came close to that by saying I don't think anything in the universe is inherently more valuable than anything else, but I didn't mean to say that I don't personally value life over anything else; I do. Like many humans (I think) I tend to assign value to things based on the level of empathy I have for them. So I value other humans over rocks, because our physical similarity means I can empathize much more with other humans than I can with rocks. However as far as I'm concerned both are merely different compositions of matter, and neither is inherently any more valuable than the other.


You do personally value other humans though you know intellectually there is no real reason to do so and it's just a way to live, not how things really are?

My further question would be, if you don't empathize with someone, is it ok to dismember that person? If there is no such thing as value, and you only value what you empathize with, and others might empathize with different things and value them, in this case, can you tell anyone that it is wrong even to kill? If this one doesn't value his children, and he kills them, and you only value them irrationally, on what grounds can you determine a right or wrong action even in the case of murder?

If I can't take care of my drug-addicted step-brother, can I send him to you?

godfry

[Beth]

I mean around 22-24 weeks. This also steps into the boundries of when the neurons in the brain connect. There are some effects on a preemie, but usually they grow out of them by adulthood. A cousin had twins, at 24 weeks. They lived and are doing rather well, with a few minor childhood health issues that are expected to improve with age. They were slow in development at first but are doing rather well now. Were they worth spending two-three months in an incubator? Well, you betcha.

[Beth]

Oh, Godfrey, this is how I can accept the limitations on late term abortions. I am willing to conceed that people do have a relatively decent argument against elective late term abortion. The babies are not people with human rights till they take that first gulp, but I am willing to conceed that viability could be a valid reason not to offer elective late term abortions. Honestly, I would think a mother would have decided long before the third term to abort, thus making it rarer than the pro-lifers would want to admit.

[LadyShea]

"..or can live viably out of the womb." What do you mean by "viably"?

Medicine is saving premature infants earlier and earlier. If 36-37 weeks is term, I believe my wife told me that medicine is now capable of keeping alive a 23, or even 22, week infant "viable" outside of the womb. As to what kind of life that premie can live, I don't know. How much of the development of the nascent human can be done outside of the appropriate nuturing medium - the uterus? Would there not be some deliterious effects upon the "survivor"?

Many things are done in medicine now, because they can be done. I wonder whether something can be done means it should be done. And when.

godfry

Well, prior to about 20 weeks, the cerebral cortes isn't even finished developing, so there is a definite viability cut off somewhere.

Preemies very often catch up after a slow start. My best friend's preemie (27 weeks? Can't remember) was in the neonatal care unit for 4 weeks, and now he is 6 years old and within normal size, mental, and phsyical ranges for his age. It is definitely worth it to me in pre-term cases because there are so many successes.

[godfry n. glad]

I mean around 22-24 months. This also steps into the boundries of when the neurons in the brain connect. There are some effects on a preemie, but usually they grow out of them by adulthood. A cousin had twins, at 24 weeks. They lived and are doing rather well, with a few minor childhood health issues that are expected to improve with age. They were slow in development at first but are doing rather well now. Were they worth spending two-three months in an incubator? Well, you betcha.

Months?! Todders!? :edit: needed...

But thanks, you confirmed my 22-23 week timeline.

godfry

[Beth]

I mean around 22-24 months. This also steps into the boundries of when the neurons in the brain connect. There are some effects on a preemie, but usually they grow out of them by adulthood. A cousin had twins, at 24 weeks. They lived and are doing rather well, with a few minor childhood health issues that are expected to improve with age. They were slow in development at first but are doing rather well now. Were they worth spending two-three months in an incubator? Well, you betcha.

Months?! Todders!? :edit: needed...

But thanks, you confirmed my 22-23 week timeline.

godfryOh, Crap! I just noticed. Duh... I meant weeks in gestation. I'll edit it.

[Sweetie]

IMO, when they are born, or at least can live viably out of the womb. Does that mean I like abortion? No. But I think that a potential person is only a potential for a human being until the child actually is born.

To me it's such a strange thing. My cousin was born at 6 1/2 months and perfectly normal as far as normalcy goes. Now, if I was 8 months pregnant, it doesn't seem reasonable to say that my cousin was a person at 6 1/2 months, but the child in my womb is not really a person yet.

I like how the laws currently stand in this state, that third trimester abortions are reserved for medically necessary abortions, but I believe they should extend it to include exceptions for rape and incest as well.

If I consider the 7-9 month old child who is born a person, and if I apply that to those in the womb, even if I say after a certain age rationally and logically they must be persons too, then third trimester abortions even for incest and rape doesn't follow, at least to me. To kill a born 6 1/2 month old would be outright murder and callous, to do the deed while it's in the womb, I don't understand why people don't make the same connections that I do, I don't understand the reasoning.

[Adora]

In the context, I understand it's usage, but it smacks of the "sanctity of life" argument that all life is valuable, merely by being "alive".
...
I have problems with the "sanctity of life" argument when it devolves into saving life, no matter what the condition of that life.

Does "life" trump all things?

Depends. I'm guessing "life" in this argument is a fill-in for "human life"? Cos y'know, HIV trumps Homo Sapien and all that, and somehow I don't think we value virus life much.

This leaves them with a clear teaching against "convenience" abortions, but no objection to medically-useful abortions, which is about where I would draw the line anyway, on instinct.

There's no such thing as a "convenient" abortion.

And I am staunchly on the side that believes no matter your opinion on what a fetus/potential human/unborn human is, the life (and choice) of the mother is always worth more.

My further question would be, if you don't empathize with someone, is it ok to dismember that person?

One of the biggest contributors to abuse and violent crime is this kind of psychosis. The perpetrator objectifies and reduces his empathy with the victim (and yes, I use "he", because this kind of violence is gendered) to 0, thus allowing him to commit whatever acts he wishes against it. Whether it's child abuse or soldiers in war or simply someone beating someone to death at his kids hockey game, it's the same problem. It's an extreme though. Most people have a certain level of empathy with most human beings because of normal socialising that takes place. It's only in cases where this socialising hasn't been done (a common thread they're finding in the backgrounds of child sex abusers is domestic violence when the abuser was young) that real problems occur.

To kill a born 6 1/2 month old would be outright murder and callous

Unless the child is existing in circumstances that would make that decision to be the most beneficial to everyone involved. I remember the case recently in the UK where the family of the 11 month old child who was living with extreme complications took the hospital to court about it. The doctors won though, and the decision was made that the next time the child had complications, it would not be put on back life support. Of course, the doctors were also arguing that the child was living with constant pain because of its complications. *shrugs* That's not callous. That's mercy.

[viscousmemories]

You do personally value other humans though you know intellectually there is no real reason to do so and it's just a way to live, not how things really are?
No that's not an accurate rephrasing of what I said. I think empathy is a real reason to value people and I believe that's how things really are.

My further question would be, if you don't empathize with someone, is it ok to dismember that person?
I'm not really sure what you mean. I believe murder is immoral, whether there is dismembering involved or not, and therefore I don't think it's ever ok.

If there is no such thing as value, and you only value what you empathize with, and others might empathize with different things and value them, in this case, can you tell anyone that it is wrong even to kill?
I never said there's no such thing as value. And I think we can safely assume that the very vast majority of humans empathize to a large degree with other humans, and would therefore agree that taking another human life is immoral.

If this one doesn't value his children, and he kills them, and you only value them irrationally, on what grounds can you determine a right or wrong action even in the case of murder?
Again I'm not really sure what you mean. I value human life because I empathize with other humans, hence I believe murder is immoral. There is nothing irrational about that value. The vast majority of other humans in my country agree, hence murder is illegal. So it doesn't matter if your hypothetical man values his children or not, to kill them would be both immoral and illegal.

[Beth]

IMO, when they are born, or at least can live viably out of the womb. Does that mean I like abortion? No. But I think that a potential person is only a potential for a human being until the child actually is born.

To me it's such a strange thing. My cousin was born at 6 1/2 months and perfectly normal as far as normalcy goes. Now, if I was 8 months pregnant, it doesn't seem reasonable to say that my cousin was a person at 6 1/2 months, but the child in my womb is not really a person yet.
Well, this is where we define personhood. The child in the womb is soley dependant upon you for existance and sustinance. It is, in essence, something that has the characteristics of a parasitic entity. Because of this, the mother's rights outweigh that of the gestating child.

I like how the laws currently stand in this state, that third trimester abortions are reserved for medically necessary abortions, but I believe they should extend it to include exceptions for rape and incest as well.

If I consider the 7-9 month old child who is born a person, and if I apply that to those in the womb, even if I say after a certain age rationally and logically they must be persons too, then third trimester abortions even for incest and rape doesn't follow, at least to me. To kill a born 6 1/2 month old would be outright murder and callous, to do the deed while it's in the womb, I don't understand why people don't make the same connections that I do, I don't understand the reasoning.
Because, again, the rights of the mother should outweight those of the unborn child(which is not a human being, since it is still solely dependant upon the host mother for survival, and has no human rights). If it is deemed that a full term delivery would be too psychologically damaging to the mother, a human being with full human rights, then the mother should have the option to abort, especially in cases of rape or incest. It is plausable to assume that as the due date nears, it could become increasingly distressing to the mother to bring that child into the world.

Your example of the comparing or equating killing of born 6 1/2 mo. old with human rights to that of a third term baby is not really an appropriate example. The rights of the mother should always outweigh those of the fetus.

[Sweetie]

Well, this is where we define personhood. The child in the womb is soley dependant upon you for existance and sustinance. It is, in essence, something that has the characteristics of a parasitic entity. Because of this, the mother's rights outweigh that of the gestating child.


Still that makes no sense to me. The only difference between a child in the womb or one outside it in the case of those that are viable outside the womb is.......a passage through the birth canal. The doctors could just as easily extract the child if the mother doesn't want it after it is viable outside the womb and care for it. I still don't see the connection.

Because, again, the rights of the mother should outweight those of the unborn child(which is not a human being, since it is still solely dependant upon the host mother for survival, and has no human rights).

For me I see great gaps of logic and a large stretching of definitions in order to say that the one in the womb is not a person and the one outside it is, and therefore the one outside the womb has human rights and the one inside is not a human yet. To me it's entirely irrational. To me it comes accross as defend the mother at all costs, even with large gaps of reasoning. It's positively tortuous to me.

If it is deemed that a full term delivery would be too psychologically damaging to the mother, a human being with full human rights, then the mother should have the option to abort, especially in cases of rape or incest. It is plausable to assume that as the due date nears, it could become increasingly distressing to the mother to bring that child into the world.

That is possible, the last sentence but I would argue that that would not be a phsycologically sound decision on the mother's part but one made out of panic. Nonetheless, since I think it unreasonable to assert that a 6 1/2 month old child is a person, and a fully viable one in the womb is not, especially at full term, then I see no reason to assert that the child should die because the mother is upset.

Your example of the comparing or equating killing of born 6 1/2 mo. old with human rights to that of a third term baby is not really an appropriate example. The rights of the mother should always outweigh those of the fetus.

Not if the "fetus" is a person. Human rights are human rights and all persons should have them. Just because you don't consider an unborn child at 7-9 months a human being even though you would assert that a 6 1/2 born child is, doesn't mean that the former is not a human being. In that case, they both have rights and one's human rights should never be able to trump another's. The government says what the government says, but so the government used to say that black people were not human beings deserving of human rights. So Hitler says that Jews don't have value or aren't human beings deserving of life. I think a 6 1/2 -9 month old child viable outside the womb, the only difference between the one born and the one not is chance and one's personhood shouldn't be only asserted on the off-chance that one is born earlier than expected.

[dave_a]

Because, again, the rights of the mother should outweight those of the unborn child(which is not a human being, since it is still solely dependant upon the host mother for survival, and has no human rights).


Ah, but somewhere in the 3rd trimester it is a human being. It is a human being that is fully functional and capable of surviving outside the womb with normal or nearly normal care. It isn't dependant upon the host(mother) anymore.

If it is deemed that a full term delivery would be too psychologically damaging to the mother, a human being with full human rights, then the mother should have the option to abort, especially in cases of rape or incest. It is plausable to assume that as the due date nears, it could become increasingly distressing to the mother to bring that child into the world.

I can't subscribe to killing a life (and in the 3rd trimester the fetus is it's own life, capable of living outside the womb) due to "psychological damage" potential. I also can't really understand how a person could be more "damaged" by birthing the child and turning it over to the state for placement in a home where it is wanted than in having it killed. I can support it for the physical health of the mother, but not for psychological health.

Your example of the comparing or equating killing of born 6 1/2 mo. old with human rights to that of a third term baby is not really an appropriate example. The rights of the mother should always outweigh those of the fetus.

In my view that ceases to be true when the unborn becomes a viable life form apart from it's mother. Frequently I hear pro choice folks refer to the fetus as a clump of cells. Early on I can certainly agree with this, but not once those cells have formed into a functioning brain, central nervous system and working organs capable of sustaining it's own life outside the woman's body.

[Beth]

Because, again, the rights of the mother should outweight those of the unborn child(which is not a human being, since it is still solely dependant upon the host mother for survival, and has no human rights).


Ah, but somewhere in the 3rd trimester it is a human being. It is a human being that is fully functional and capable of surviving outside the womb with normal or nearly normal care. It isn't dependant upon the host(mother) anymore. As long as it remains invitro, it is fully dependant upon the mother.

If it is deemed that a full term delivery would be too psychologically damaging to the mother, a human being with full human rights, then the mother should have the option to abort, especially in cases of rape or incest. It is plausable to assume that as the due date nears, it could become increasingly distressing to the mother to bring that child into the world.

I can't subscribe to killing a life (and in the 3rd trimester the fetus is it's own life, capable of living outside the womb) due to "psychological damage" potential. I also can't really understand how a person could be more "damaged" by birthing the child and turning it over to the state for placement in a home where it is wanted than in having it killed. I can support it for the physical health of the mother, but not for psychological health.Perhaps some of these girls were prevented from aborting earlier and they finally had support, or perhaps they did not realize it was actually an option. In anycase, something like this could be determined by courts or fixed by crossing state lines.

I have known of a case such as this. The girl was raped and tried to carry the baby, but by the sixth month it was too overwhelming to her and after trying to obtain one here, she had to cross state lines to have the abortion. The baby was around 7 1/2 to 8 months in gestatation bby the time she aborted.

Your example of the comparing or equating killing of born 6 1/2 mo. old with human rights to that of a third term baby is not really an appropriate example. The rights of the mother should always outweigh those of the fetus.

In my view that ceases to be true when the unborn becomes a viable life form apart from it's mother. Frequently I hear pro choice folks refer to the fetus as a clump of cells. Early on I can certainly agree with this, but not once those cells have formed into a functioning brain, central nervous system and working organs capable of sustaining it's own life outside the woman's body.I can understand this, certainly I can, but I still believe the mother has the right to her own body and can chose to expel the life that is in her if bringing that child to term is potentially damaging to her psyche or to her health. I sincerely doubt that there would be many cases of late term abortions that do not have some very serious reasons behind them and we are not discussing elective abortion in this situation. This is where there was a gross violation of the woman's (or girl's) body that resulted in a pregnancy that should have never been to begin with.I think those that do occur do not have much to do with panic.

[Sweetie]

No that's not an accurate rephrasing of what I said. I think empathy is a real reason to value people and I believe that's how things really are.

But what I see in that sentence is that people really don't have value, but we should value them anyways because of empathy. The problem with that to me is two-fold: a) not everybody empathizes with other humans, some people are completely callous so by it's subjective nature, for you empathy is a good reason to value human life even knowing intellectually that they actually don't have any value but to the person who does not empathize, then it is not immoral to do so even though the prevailing laws say that it is illegal, for the government can't dictate morality. It's illegal, it's not good for society to be able to kill whomever you choose, however, morally speaking, to some it may be completely moral to kill some"thing" (some person) who doesn't have any value to them. b) It's an emotional defense. I don't find it reasonable to hold what one considers to be a logical position and then turn around and appeal to emotions for justification for why they hold something true that contradicts what they intellectually think is true. In that case to me either human beings have value or they don't. They have value to you because of your emotions, but I never find an appeal to emotions to make a good enough case for anything especially if one is to assert that realistically they don't have value, it is no more immoral to take apart a computer than a human being, but we treat them as if they do anyways, because one feels they should have value, or they have value to one because one feels for them.

I'm not really sure what you mean. I believe murder is immoral, whether there is dismembering involved or not, and therefore I don't think it's ever ok.

But my question would then be, why? Why do you consider murder immoral? I understand that you have already offered the reason, empathy, but that to me is not a good enough arguement.

I never said there's no such thing as value.

You did say that there is no inherent value to anything, not humans nor computers.

And I think we can safely assume that the very vast majority of humans empathize to a large degree with other humans,

I don't see at present that empathy is a good enough reason.

and would therefore agree that taking another human life is immoral.

Which would merely be an appeal to the majority. In that case we could assert that God exists.

I've really never spent much time addressing or understanding a position like yours. My questions are mostly curiosity on how such a position can be defended, FYI.

[Sweetie]

I can understand this, certainly I can, but I still believe the mother has the right to her own body and can chose to expel the life that is in her if bringing that child to term is potentially damaging to her psyche or to her health.

But once the child within the womb is considered a person, then the potential damage to the woman and her psyche is equivalent to the potential damage of the viable "person" in the womb. In that case, the potential damage to the well-being and psyche of the child needs to be taken into consideration as well as the woman's. You may continue to assert that a viable child inside the womb is not a person and the one that it is born is, but I don't think I'll ever see good enough justification for that assertion. At that stage normally, the arguements merely descend into appeals to pity or emotion by listing so many unfortunate situations that generally mean that the mother couldn't get an abortion for whatever reason, therefore the person in her womb is not a person. The fact of the matter is that the time has lapsed no matter how unfortunate the situation is, and the child within the womb is viable, and to me is a person. No matter how unfortunate the circumstances of the woman, rationally for me that can't change .

So then I sincerely doubt that there would be many cases of late term abortions that do not have some very serious reasons behind them and we are not discussing elective abortion in this situation.

No matter how serious the circumstances it doesn't change the personhood and viability of the practically fully formed child within. You may assert that a gross violation occurred, but the fact of the matter is that it did occur. Violating the should be human rights of the child within does not change that.

[Sweetie]

I always thought that most defenses of third trimester abortions have to do with ownership. The baby is not the woman, but the baby is theirs and is therefore fit to be disposed of at the woman's will, like a piece of property. I remember in High School during a debate, the arguement offered that a woman shouldn't have to have a child she doesn't want and have to suffer through living while that child is living elsewhere in the case of adoption. That assertion has always seemed intensely callous to me. Then too, by extension, once again in the case of third-trimester abortions, a woman shouldn't have to endure that a child lives on that is the result of her being raped. Even in that case, I can't personally fault the child for the "sins of the fathers." As psychologically difficult as it may be, I don't think it's rational and I think it's one of those things about life that to a woman that may be unfortunate, but to the child may be negligible, the child had no choice in it's own creation nor the circumstances of it's creation, but a person it still is. I just wish healing for the woman in such cases, healing and closure. Sometimes I think having the child can act as closure for some women, something good and alive and growing out of something that was bad and painful.

[Beth]

Well, this is where we define personhood. The child in the womb is soley dependant upon you for existance and sustinance. It is, in essence, something that has the characteristics of a parasitic entity. Because of this, the mother's rights outweigh that of the gestating child.


Still that makes no sense to me. The only difference between a child in the womb or one outside it in the case of those that are viable outside the womb is.......a passage through the birth canal. The doctors could just as easily extract the child if the mother doesn't want it after it is viable outside the womb and care for it. I still don't see the connection. Well, unless there is some sort of detrimental reason to abort, in most states, they cannot just abort when the child is fully viable. But there may be valid reasons for a raped mother not to want to carry to term. One might possibly be that she never wants to have to worry with the possibility that after adopting out that the child will come and find her. She may want nothing to do with the child and simply loath it. Perhaps knowing that her rapist's or father's child is alive and growing inside her is a repeated violation to her, causing her extreme anguish. It just is not black and white.



For me I see great gaps of logic and a large stretching of definitions in order to say that the one in the womb is not a person and the one outside it is, and therefore the one outside the womb has human rights and the one inside is not a human yet. To me it's entirely irrational. To me it comes accross as defend the mother at all costs, even with large gaps of reasoning. It's positively tortuous to me. I do not think so. A child is a person and gains human rights once it is born because it is now an independant being from his or her mother. The newborn is no longer connected to its mother deriving its sole sustinance from her. The new born may need an adult to survive, but it can live independantly upon it's mother. It is a human being, actualized. Thus by it's first gulp of ait, it inherits human rights.

. It is plausable to assume that as the due date nears, it could become increasingly distressing to the mother to bring that child into the world.

That is possible, the last sentence but I would argue that that would not be a phsycologically sound decision on the mother's part but one made out of panic. Nonetheless, since I think it unreasonable to assert that a 6 1/2 month old child is a person, and a fully viable one in the womb is not, especially at full term, then I see no reason to assert that the child should die because the mother is upset. Well, the right of the mother come foremost in this situation. The mother's well being outweighs that of the fetus to come to term.

Your example of the comparing or equating killing of born 6 1/2 mo. old with human rights to that of a third term baby is not really an appropriate example. The rights of the mother should always outweigh those of the fetus.

Not if the "fetus" is a person. Human rights are human rights and all persons should have them. I do not believe a fetuis should be granted human rights. It is a step into taking away the rights of the mother and making her sole role as being a baby incubator.

Just because you don't consider an unborn child at 7-9 months a human being even though you would assert that a 6 1/2 born child is, doesn't mean that the former is not a human being. In that case, they both have rights and one's human rights should never be able to trump another's. A fetus is not a human being. The fetus should not trump the mother's rights and that is exactly what your argument states.

The government says what the government says, but so the government used to say that black people were not human beings deserving of human rights. So Hitler says that Jews don't have value or aren't human beings deserving of life. You bringing Hitler into this is rather silly. You are comparing apples and oranges here. Hitler killed mamed and tortured human beings, very real, thinking and breathing human beings. A fetus is not a person actualized. It is the potential. Something that mommies and daddies dream and fantasize about and wonder what it will be like. If it is aborted, then it will simply never exist. If I had been aborted, I simply never would have existed. End of story.

What you seem to be advocating is that the right of the fetus trumps the right of the mother. This thinking is a backward step in a woman's reproductive rights.

[Beth]

I can understand this, certainly I can, but I still believe the mother has the right to her own body and can chose to expel the life that is in her if bringing that child to term is potentially damaging to her psyche or to her health.

But once the child within the womb is considered a person, then the potential damage to the woman and her psyche is equivalent to the potential damage of the viable "person" in the womb. In that case, the potential damage to the well-being and psyche of the child needs to be taken into consideration as well as the woman's. You may continue to assert that a viable child inside the womb is not a person and the one that it is born is, but I don't think I'll ever see good enough justification for that assertion. At that stage normally, the arguements merely descend into appeals to pity or emotion by listing so many unfortunate situations that generally mean that the mother couldn't get an abortion for whatever reason, therefore the person in her womb is not a person. The fact of the matter is that the time has lapsed no matter how unfortunate the situation is, and the child within the womb is viable, and to me is a person. No matter how unfortunate the circumstances of the woman, rationally for me that can't change .

So then I sincerely doubt that there would be many cases of late term abortions that do not have some very serious reasons behind them and we are not discussing elective abortion in this situation.

No matter how serious the circumstances it doesn't change the personhood and viability of the practically fully formed child within. You may assert that a gross violation occurred, but the fact of the matter is that it did occur. Violating the should be human rights of the child within does not change that.The fetus has no human rights. The right of the mother should always come first.

[Sweetie]

Well, unless there is some sort of detrimental reason to abort, in most states, they cannot just abort when the child is fully viable. But there may be valid reasons for a raped mother not to want to carry to term.

Valid reasons aka civil considerations don't trump human rights to me. I just always thought it strange and still do that one is to assert whether or not I'm valueable or a person dependent upon whether or not my mother wanted or wants me, or whether or not my mother "felt like" carrying me to term.

I do not think so. A child is a person and gains human rights once it is born because it is now an independant being from his or her mother.

My problem is, why wouldn't we just make the child independent of it's mother if it is capable instead of killing it before it is free of the womb? Ownership?

The newborn is no longer connected to its mother deriving its sole sustinance from her.

But that's only chance that it is still in the womb at all.

The new born may need an adult to survive, but it can live independantly upon it's mother. It is a human being, actualized. Thus by it's first gulp of ait, it inherits human rights.

Which once again, is unreasonable to me.
Well, the right of the mother come foremost in this situation. The mother's well being outweighs that of the fetus to come to term.

In most cases I don't see why the well-being of both can't be considered and why there can't be a compromise.

I do not believe a fetuis should be granted human rights. It is a step into taking away the rights of the mother and making her sole role as being a baby incubator.

But it remains in this case that we have turned children into mere property, their value dependent upon whether or not their mother wants them, their rights dependent upon whether or not their mother wants them. I don't think that's good for humanity either.
A fetus is not a human being. The fetus should not trump the mother's rights and that is exactly what your argument states.

Once the fetus can reasonably be considered a person, then it should have human rights. You and the government disagree, I disagree with you and the government.

You bringing Hitler into this is rather silly. You are comparing apples and oranges here. Hitler killed mamed and tortured human beings, very real, thinking and breathing human beings.

And my arguement is that third trimester "fetuses" are human beings. Hitler did not consider Jews to be valid human beings deserving of freedom and human rights. You don't consider third trimester children to be human beings deserving of human rights. Like I said, in a world of subjectivity. But once again I don't think it's reasonable to assign human status to a 6 1/2 month old born child, and not to a 6 1/2 month old child in the womb.

A fetus is not a person actualized.

It still is unreasonable to assert that a fetus only becomes an actualized person after a trip down the birth canal.

It is the potential. Something that mommies and daddies dream and fantasize about and wonder what it will be like. If it is aborted, then it will simply never exist. If I had been aborted, I simply never would have existed. End of story.

Something that doesn't exist does not need to be dealt with. You may interchange terms all you like, fetus for potential person, born for actualized person, I just think it's unreasonable.

What you seem to be advocating is that the right of the fetus trumps the right of the mother. This thinking is a backward step in a woman's reproductive rights.

No, I think it's about equality. One doesn't trump the other, but both are.

[dave_a]

The fetus has no human rights. The right of the mother should always come first.

Since rights or the recognition of them ultimately come from or are protected by other humans I don't think that we can say the fetus has no rights. Even the Roe v Wade decision said (majority opinion by Blackburn) the fetus has rights that the state has a compelling interest in protecting at some point.

The opinion also stated that this compelling interest trumped the mother's right to privacy.

I have no qualms about 1st trimester or even 2nd trimester abortions, but last trimester I certainly do because I do not view the viable fetus as having no rights nor did the Supreme court or most state legislatures.

Sure, in cases such as rape or the mother's health exceptions need to be made because now the interests of the mother are greater than they would otherwise be.

I think that labelling a viable fetus as having no rights just because it is inside the mother is an indefensible position if we maintain that once it is "naturally" expeled it automatically has rights. The point where a fetus becomes viable is when it no longer requires it's mother's body to continue living. Once that point is reached a live birth can be induced and the mother left with no responsibility for the infant, removing the "forced gestation" argument. In Wisconsin at least a mother with a born infant less than a certain number of days old (don't know the exact number of days) can turn the infant over to the state with no questions asked. It's even legal to just drop the infant off and leave no information as to the mother's name.

I don't know that expelling a live baby is necessarily any more or less potentially traumatic to the mother than expelling a dead one (although inducing a live birth generally takes longer). Either way the mother wants the fetus out of her. If it can live without her I don't see she has any right to have it killed. The mother get's what she wants, no baby.

[Beth]

The fetus has no human rights. The right of the mother should always come first.

Since rights or the recognition of them ultimately come from or are protected by other humans I don't think that we can say the fetus has no rights. Even the Roe v Wade decision said (majority opinion by Blackburn) the fetus has rights that the state has a compelling interest in protecting at some point. The fetus is not afforded the rights of breathing, thinking actual people. This is Bush's lament as well as other pro-lifers. Of course there are certain rights of the fetus as afforded by each state. But in cases where the mother's well being is jeapordized, the mother's rights should always trump fetal rights.

The opinion also stated that this compelling interest trumped the mother's right to privacy. Please expand upon this.

I have no qualms about 1st trimester or even 2nd trimester abortions, but last trimester I certainly do because I do not view the viable fetus as having no rights nor did the Supreme court or most state legislatures. The fetus is afford certain fetal rights as granted by each state, that is legal, should they be granted if they conflict with the rights of the mother? I do not believe so.

Some states allow termination of pregnancy through term, but very few do.

I am speaking of situations where carrying a child to term can be to the detriment of the mother. In this situation, the mother's rights do trump fetal rights. I am not speaking of, nor supporting elective abortions.(I have my own personal thoughts and issues on them just from carrying two children to term.) I was speaking solely that their should be allowances for rape and incest cases, even into the third term, if the mother is severely mentally or emotionally distressed. The potential for a human being should never trump the rights of the actualized person if they conflict with the Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness in the conscious, thinking, independent person.

People are those who have come into this world and are actualized. They are capable of living independently, capable of reasoning and have intellectual capacity. They are able to draw breath and live independently of others. A potential for a person (fetus) is only that, a potential. A potential son or daughter, a potential ballerina or sports figure, a potential leader, a potential what ever the parent dreams of. The rights of the potential human should never trump the rights of a human being, nor should the potential person be afforded the rights of a person. This seems to be the movement in America with the pro-life movement.

Sure, in cases such as rape or the mother's health exceptions need to be made because now the interests of the mother are greater than they would otherwise be. This was my argument. I do not support elective full term abortions.

I think that labelling a viable fetus as having no rights just because it is inside the mother is an indefensible position if we maintain that once it is "naturally" expeled it automatically has rights. The point where a fetus becomes viable is when it no longer requires it's mother's body to continue living. Once that point is reached a live birth can be induced and the mother left with no responsibility for the infant, removing the "forced gestation" argument. In Wisconsin at least a mother with a born infant less than a certain number of days old (don't know the exact number of days) can turn the infant over to the state with no questions asked. It's even legal to just drop the infant off and leave no information as to the mother's name. Ok, I apologize. I wrote hastily. I have had more time to actually think about this before posting.

The fetus, a potential human being can have certain rights (fetal rights) unless it conflicts with the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of the Mother.

When a fetus is born, it is because the mother forgoes her right and allow the child to grow and develop within. If the mother choses to exercise control of her body to protect herself from the potential dangers of the pregnancy or child birth, she should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy. Such is the case when the mother's life is endangered or her mental anguish because of the pregnancy is severe.

From what I understand, two entities can never have equal rights to occupy the same body. One must always forgo rights to the other. The mother's rights always outweigh the rights of the fetus (potential person).

[godfry n. glad]

Just so everybody is aware.... I did NOT raise the issue of fetal abortion in my OP.

The issue I am concerned about is the extension of life using mechanical life support systems for post-natal infants (full-term or premies) who will not survive without that life support. I'd also like to clarify that I do not mean infants that have a chance to improve and possibly flourish, but those who will have no such opportunity.

And, yes.... It happens. With alarming frequency and hideous cost.

Those of you who wish to continue discussing abortions, plunge on, but I'm content with the law the way it stands. I think it ironic, and hypocritical, to the extreme that those who object to the current situation have taken it their own hands to impose post facto abortions on doctors who provide abortion services. That is murder.

godfry

[Cool Hand]

Those of you who wish to continue discussing abortions, plunge on, but I'm content with the law the way it stands. I think it ironic, and hypocritical, to the extreme that those who object to the current situation have taken it their own hands to impose post facto abortions on doctors who provide abortion services. That is murder.

godfry

I agree. In that same vein, it is curious that pro-lifers tend to be strong supporters of the death penalty.

I wrote a long, detailed reply to your response to my post above, the one in which you called me a "young man," but it got lost forever when I hit the submit button. In it, I touched on what I had in mind when I wrote about advanced heart disease in elderly persons. Please forgive me for not trying to reproduce it.

For the record, I'm 41, but I appreciate being called young. It beats the hell out of hearing the coeds at the university gym I attend call me "sir."

My father died at the age of 72 of a sudden, unexpected, massive heart attack almost 4 years ago. He was never overweight, had no prior history of any heart disease, didn't smoke, got regular check ups, exercised in the weight room 3 times a week, hiked in the woods and mountains nearly every weekend, and ate a very healthy diet of mostly fruits, vegetables, grains, and lean meats.

All four of my grandparents had heart disease and died of it. The men lived into their early to mid 70s, and the women into their late 80s. It is very likely that I too will develop, or already have begun developing, heart disease and that I will die from it when I grow older, assuming I live long enough to become vulnerable to it. I'm no stranger to the issue, but it doesn't change the very real economic effect spending inordinate amounts of medical resources on elder care has on the rest of the population.

As you indicate above, like it or not, medical resources are rationed already, and they must be rationed in the future as well. Those who plead that we are reducing the value of human lives to dollars and cents haven't yet grasped that medical resources, including doctors' services, hospital beds and operating rooms, pharmaceuticals, and many other goods and services, are limited. As the population in most need of medical care swells due to the aging of the largest generational cohort, those resources will be stretched like they have never been stretched before. As a direct result, all other persons will feel the pinch of a shortage of medical resources. They will also feel the sting of paying more taxes and higher insurance premiums to subsidize the care of the elderly.

It may seem cold and callous, but medical triage, direct or indirect, is and will continue to be a very real necessity. It has nothing to do with individual or corporate greed, and everything to do with risk assessment and the spreading of that risk. Unfortunately, the risk is rising and the pool of persons available to spread it among is shrinking.

Cool Hand

[Adora]

The issue I am concerned about is the extension of life using mechanical life support systems for post-natal infants (full-term or premies) who will not survive without that life support. I'd also like to clarify that I do not mean infants that have a chance to improve and possibly flourish, but those who will have no such opportunity. And, yes.... It happens. With alarming frequency and hideous cost.

Yay! For once I was on-topic. This almost deserves a smiley... almost.

[godfry n. glad]

Those of you who wish to continue discussing abortions, plunge on, but I'm content with the law the way it stands. I think it ironic, and hypocritical, to the extreme that those who object to the current situation have taken it their own hands to impose post facto abortions on doctors who provide abortion services. That is murder.

godfry

I agree. In that same vein, it is curious that pro-lifers tend to be strong supporters of the death penalty.

Thanks. Yeah, I know. I used to be the mirror of that, until a five-year-old boy was abducted from a parking lot not three blocks from my house, driven across the metro area to the abductor's home, where he was bound and gagged and hung, alive, in a closet. According to the medical examiner, the perpetrator then proceeded to torture the child for a couple of days before finally disembowelling the child while he was still concious....killing him. Although there was no witness, the dead child's mutilated body was found in the perpetrator's home, the child's blood was on the perpetrator's clothes and....lo, the perpetrator not only confessed, but led legal authorities to the graves of two other small children upon which he had performed similar outrages. This killer not only confessed, but bluntly stated that if released, he would repeat his crimes. He got a thrill out of torturing and killing children. This kind of human trash, in my mind, does not deserve to continue to live, particularly warehoused in some public penitentiary for the remainder of his possibly long life at our expense. The perpetrator requested the death penalty and the state of Washington gladly complied. At that point, I decided that there was indeed a purpose for the death penalty. I'm not happy about the death penalty and I know that it has been wrongfully applied, but it has a purpose.

I wrote a long, detailed reply to your response to my post above, the one in which you called me a "young man," but it got lost forever when I hit the submit button. In it, I touched on what I had in mind when I wrote about advanced heart disease in elderly persons. Please forgive me for not trying to reproduce it.

No need for forgiveness from me. I've done the same many a time. Why is it that the ones I consign to the ether are always those written in timeless, deathless prose? :deepsigh:

For the record, I'm 41, but I appreciate being called young. It beats the hell out of hearing the coeds at the university gym I attend call me "sir."

Heh... Yep, I know what you mean. The first time someone called me "sir", I had to look around and determine that they were actually talking to me. But that was years ago. I've got exactly 10 years on you, young man.

My father died at the age of 72 of a sudden, unexpected, massive heart attack almost 4 years ago. He was never overweight, had no prior history of any heart disease, didn't smoke, got regular check ups, exercised in the weight room 3 times a week, hiked in the woods and mountains nearly every weekend, and ate a very healthy diet of mostly fruits, vegetables, grains, and lean meats.

All four of my grandparents had heart disease and died of it. The men lived into their early to mid 70s, and the women into their late 80s. It is very likely that I too will develop, or already have begun developing, heart disease and that I will die from it when I grow older, assuming I live long enough to become vulnerable to it. I'm no stranger to the issue, but it doesn't change the very real economic effect spending inordinate amounts of medical resources on elder care has on the rest of the population.

Ouch. Yeah. Do you feel "marked"? Well, a massive heart attack beats what I'm looking at. My prime objective at this point is to get my kidneys to outlive me...so renal failure is high on my list. That's followed by heart attack/stroke; and, having seen my brother suffer the effects of a debilitating stroke, I hope it's a heart attack that gets me, because the one person I depended upon to finish the job right if I was vegetative is gone...a victim of ovarian cancer.

As you indicate above, like it or not, medical resources are rationed already, and they must be rationed in the future as well. Those who plead that we are reducing the value of human lives to dollars and cents haven't yet grasped that medical resources, including doctors' services, hospital beds and operating rooms, pharmaceuticals, and many other goods and services, are limited. As the population in most need of medical care swells due to the aging of the largest generational cohort, those resources will be stretched like they have never been stretched before. As a direct result, all other persons will feel the pinch of a shortage of medical resources. They will also feel the sting of paying more taxes and higher insurance premiums to subsidize the care of the elderly.

It may seem cold and callous, but medical triage, direct or indirect, is and will continue to be a very real necessity. It has nothing to do with individual or corporate greed, and everything to do with risk assessment and the spreading of that risk. Unfortunately, the risk is rising and the pool of persons available to spread it among is shrinking.

Cool Hand

With the addition of "with limited resources and inflating expectations" after "that risk" in the above paragraph, I'd say "Amen".

godfry