We allow it when one person is an immediate threat to others even if the death penalty otherwise would not apply (consider someone who is insane and therefore not responsible for his actions).
But the "child" is totally innocent.
So is the mentally insane if he doesn't understand his actions.
Abman, I don't quite get what you're saying here. Are you talking about the use of the death penalty on mentally insane inmates? That the insanity defense is used shows how there are issues with putting them to death.
asbestosman wrote:Or is the difference perhaps that one issue is caused by nature while the other is caused by man's fiddling with nature and therefore is more responsible for the results?
As long as no embryos are destroyed I have no difficulty with it. I don't, on the other hand, believe it's good for a woman to implant several embryos in order to "hedge her bets" and then give birth to multiples. I'd advocate for adoption of viable embryos.
Also, I'm curious as to why you don't consider a teratoma or a fetus in fetu to be human. Is it because they are not viable on their own after 9 months of gestation?
Yes. I've consistently made viability a requirement in this discussion.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
beastie wrote:Terri Schiavo was not just disabled. Her brain had been permanently damaged, in a way that would disallow any "Terri" to still be there. Her body was a shell. To me, this is, indeed, deification of "life" - her body had to be maintained, like an empty shell, a shrine?? Terri was not there. Whatever made Terri be Terri was not there. Whatever makes us "human" was no longer there, just like it is not there for a blastocyst.
I disagree that this constitutes reverence for life. To me, reverence for life would seem to include a willingness to recognize when life is gone, and it's time to let it go. To be brutally frank, to keep Terri's body alive in that way seems almost obscene to me.
But she was not your child, and she was not your spouse. Are you denying the possibility that the husband had financial motivation in ending her life? Who will protect against that happening, if the state does not intervene? If it was too much for him, why didn't he simply divorce her and let her parents take custody?
There's a lot we don't know about medicine even in the early 21st century, and there are a lot of advances to come that will render some of these discussions moot in the future.
I have to be out for a few hours, so won't get to some of the rest of this until later.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
beastie wrote: by the way, I'm unconvinced that, if abortion is murder, that abortion is morally justified even when the life of the mother is in danger. When else do we allow one person to be killed to save another?
I would agree that I don't think the death of the unborn child should be the intent. The intent should try to be preservation of both lives, and the death of the unborn child an unintended consequence. A comparison could be made to separating Siamese twins, but I'm not sure it would be a fair one.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Moniker wrote:Abman, I don't quite get what you're saying here. Are you talking about the use of the death penalty on mentally insane inmates? That the insanity defense is used shows how there are issues with putting them to death.
No, I'm talking about killing an insane person at the scene where he is weilding a gun or some other weapon and starting to threaten the lives of other innocent people. In such a circumstance it is justified to kill him only at that time to prevent him from killing innocent bystanders even though he himself may not be accountable for his actions and would not be found guilty because of the insanity defense.
Last edited by Analytics on Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
But she was not your child, and she was not your spouse. Are you denying the possibility that the husband had financial motivation in ending her life? Who will protect against that happening, if the state does not intervene? If it was too much for him, why didn't he simply divorce her and let her parents take custody?
There's a lot we don't know about medicine even in the early 21st century, and there are a lot of advances to come that will render some of these discussions moot in the future.
I'm not going to argue the details of the Terri Schiavo case. The husband stated, and the courts agreed with his evidence, that Terri had expressed the wish NOT to have her "life" continued under such extraordinary circumstances. And the state HAD already intervened.
I know it's hard to lose someone, but keeping their "body" alive, when that body is only a shell and whatever made that person a human being is gone strikes me as denying the reality of death altogether.
But I really don't want to derail on this. My point is: what makes a human being human? Is it just the right DNA?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
No, I'm talking about a killing a mentally insane person while at the scene where he is weilding a gun or some other weapon and starting to threaten the lives of other innocent people. In such a circumstance it is justified to kill him at that time to prevent him from killing innocent bystanders even though he himself may not be accountable for his actions and would not be found guilty because of the insanity defense. Even if moments later he is not longer an immediate threat and it would no longer be justified to kill him, yet it would be justified while he poses an immediate threat to the lives of others
But, again, you're comparing the unborn child to someone who is actively doing something to threaten another person. All the unborn child is doing is living.
There is a reason even people who are adamantly opposed to abortion are willing to prefer the life of the mother over the life of the fetus. I think the reason is that, on some level, they do recognize that, prior to viability, the developing fetus is NOT the same as a human being, like the mother.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:But, again, you're comparing the unborn child to someone who is actively doing something to threaten another person. All the unborn child is doing is living.
I'm not so sure about that. If the unborn child is an ectopic pregnancy, then it is threatening the life of the mother as well as its own life. Whether that threat is active or passive, immediate or not doesn't seem to matter. The point is that both are innocent and both pose a threat to other innocent people. Perhaps one difference in the cases is that the fetus also threatens its own life by threatening the mother, but does not threaten anyone else (except perhaps any other twins in the womb with it. An insane individual often is a threat to more than one person and may be less likely to be a threat to himself. than a fetus. Another difference is that often the fetus could not possibly live without being a threat wheras the insane could. In any case, I don't think those disctinctions are vital to make the case that one could concevably justify terminating one human life in preference for another one which it threatens albeit innocently.
There is a reason even people who are adamantly opposed to abortion are willing to prefer the life of the mother over the life of the fetus. I think the reason is that, on some level, they do recognize that, prior to viability, the developing fetus is NOT the same as a human being, like the mother.
In the LDS position that is almost certainly correct. However, I'm not so sure that must be so in every case. I wonder what hypothetical distinction Sagan was able to see when he assumed, for the sake of argument, that a fetus really was human in order to discuss the problematic position of making allowances for rape.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Also, I'm curious as to why you don't consider a teratoma or a fetus in fetu to be human. Is it because they are not viable on their own after 9 months of gestation?
Yes. I've consistently made viability a requirement in this discussion.
I see and that's fine. What if the fetus in fetu can survive outside the host with the proper medical treatments? Should one then attempt to keep it alive as with Terri Schiavo? (yes, I think it would have been better for him to divorce her and leave her to her parents. I have my reasons, but let's not get sidetracked).
Last edited by Analytics on Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
the road to hana wrote: If she's too young to be a mother, she's too young to be sexually active and engaging in unprotected sex. Making abortion like a delete button is problematic.
This is what it all comes down to. Preventing people from having sex.
This is not about the right and wrong with abortion, it's about the right and wrong of unprotected sex.
Yep! It ALWAYS comes down to punishment for sex.
No, it doesn't always. I make no judgments about other people's sexual activity. It's incorrect to paint me with that broad brush.
You sure do make judgments. At least one big one. Here it is:
the road to hana wrote: If she's too young to be a mother, she's too young to be sexually active and engaging in unprotected sex.
I don't see the problem with a "delete button" at all, by the way.
The consequences for the mother of the aborted fetus would be dwarfed by the potential consequences for an unwanted pregnancy that is carried out - that would impact the future child, the mother, probably the mother's family, the local community, tax payers, etc...