Guest American Woman Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) Big difference between life support and abortion. In fact they're not the same. I didn't say they were the same. In fact, my argument is that "killing" is not all the same. Life support - the very name describes its function. SUPPORT. They didn't call it "Life Ender," did they? So suddenly what it's called does matter? But you don't think when life support is available, taking it away doesn't result in the end of the living organism that is a human being? That is one definition of "killing." As I said, many things fall under the most basic definition, but people hardly refer to the many things as "killing." Taking off life support means letting the "living organism" exists on its own, letting nature takes its course. We're not naturally connected to a life support, you know.....Some end up surviving - breathing on their own - after being taken from life support. So you think people should always just exist on their own, letting nature take its course? Wouldn't that pretty much eliminate medical care? Yet the law doesn't see it that way: David and Ginger Twitchell, a Christian Science couple from Massachusetts who relied on prayer rather than on doctors as their young son lay dying from an obstructed bowel, were convicted of involuntary manslaughter last month. link Abortion is.....killing. So is birth control. Are you against that, too? Edited August 4, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) "Killing" in and of itself isn't always a horrible act. In fact, sometimes it's an act of mercy. Except that it will almost certainly be abused to justify murder. That's how mostly these things go (legislating and so-called rights), they progress. It is quite understandable for the handicapped people to be very concerned about euthanasia. Some over zealous family member could just as easily decide they (handicapped) are suffering....and do an "act of mercy." Handicapped people could just as easily be declared "non-viable".....and will go down the drain just like the fetus, or the non-viable infant. And then AW will tell those who protests against it: "But they don't even call it murder. See? It's called "mercy snuffing." It's an "act of mercy." Edited August 4, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) I didn't say they were the same. In fact, my argument is that "killing" is not all the same. I must've been confused. I thought you brought up mercy killing in comparison to abortion. So is birth control. Are you against that, too? On Christian grounds, of course yes. How many times do I have to say that? Edited August 4, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 Except that it will almost certainly be abused to justify murder. Wow. Almost certainly, eh? Such faith in humanity! That's how mostly these things go (legislating and so-called rights), they progress. More like that's mostly how the arguments against these things go. It is quite understandable for the handicapped people to be very concerned about euthanasia. Some over zealous family member could just as easily decide they (handicapped) are suffering....and do an "act of mercy." Do you believe in letting animals suffer - or do you believe in putting them down? andicapped people could just as easily be declared "non-viable".....and will go down the drain just like the fetus, or the non-viable infant. That's your doom-and-gloom scenario. So should people who are suffering and want an end to that suffering just go on suffering because of your doom-and-gloom mindset? What makes you think you have the right to make that decision for them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 I must've been confused. I thought you brought up mercy killing in comparison to abortion. I brought it up as an example of "killing." On Christian grounds, of course yes. How many times do I have to say that? Enough times to make it clear. Why the "on Christian grounds" qualifier? The question is - are you against birth control? Your answer is yes. So I can only assume that you support the births of all the babies who are born in Africa only to die because there are too many of them and not enough food. You see that as the right thing "on Christian grounds?" Or do you perhaps think population control might be a tad bit more along the lines of the right thing to do? You do realize that if God did indeed create us, he gave us a brain, right? Don't you think perhaps He intended that we use it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) I didn't say they were the same. In fact, my argument is that "killing" is not all the same. So what do you mean by this? AW:They are BOTH "killing" by the basic definition - ending the existence of a living organism. So I disagreed with that statement and explained that they are not the same. Where taking off life support doesn't necessarily mean wanting to kill the person but to let him survive on his own - letting nature takes its course.....whereas abortion's purpose is to definitely kill the fetus, without mercy may I add. Edited August 4, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) So suddenly what it's called does matter? Well I was only going along with your rationale that you go by what it's called. This one is called Life SUPPORT (and I must say it's aptly called that) for the function it does - supporting UNnaturally. But you don't think when life support is available, taking it away doesn't result in the end of the living organism that is a human being? It may.... or it may not. Like I said, humans don't naturally exist with a life support machine attach to them. Are you walking around with a life support machine? Taking life support away could result in death....or it may not. You never will know, wouldn't you, unless you remove it. That is one definition of "killing." As I said, many things fall under the most basic definition, but people hardly refer to the many things as "killing." And here you go again. So you think people should always just exist on their own, letting nature take its course? Wouldn't that pretty much eliminate medical care? Where did you get that idea? All I did was correct your inaccurate assessment that abortion and life support are the same thing! They're not! Edited August 4, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) Wow. Almost certainly, eh? Such faith in humanity! Hello? The very subject of argument we're discussing is a classic example how things will progress! From a whole shebang of birth controls progressed to abortion to only when it's absolutely necessary (mom's health in danger)...then it became okay to kill 3 months old babes....4 months....5 months to the presnt where it's okay to kill a baby as long as he's not breathing on his own. Forced breaching here we go! You can now break a baby's neck while his head isn't out yet. Abortion had become a birth control device! Then some people (I gave the source) are now talking about infants that are born....that they should be lumped along with the fetus. What next? Precocious little one year olds? Terrible two's who give their moms migraines? They progress! Edited August 4, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) That's your doom-and-gloom scenario. So should people who are suffering and want an end to that suffering just go on suffering because of your doom-and-gloom mindset? What makes you think you have the right to make that decision for them? How do you know they really want to die? They could've been suffering from depression...or were coersced by family who find it hard to look after them...or they're in an abusive environment that makes them feel useless and a burden...or they're with uncaring people....or they don't have anyone....or they're plain scared! How sure are you they're not making a clouded decision? We always hear about someone trying to commit suicide....but actually not wanting to die. The act of suicide was just a desperate call for attention. How do you know the difference? Edited August 4, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 Anyway, if you want to pursue the euthanasia discussion (which is interesting)...let's start another thread for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 They are BOTH "killing" by the basic definition - ending the existence of a living organism. You're just saying that it's morally ok to end a life that's dependent on a machine but not morally ok to end a life dependent on another's body. Yet they are both "killing," and to say otherwise is not to understand the definition of killing. Yes both cases I mentioned of ending life support are "killing". And I never said whether it's morally ok or not to end a life that's dependent on a machine. But to take a stance, I would say it's morally ok to pull life-support in the first case (hopeless vegetative state) but not ok with other (patient with good prospects of recovering to decent health). And I'm arguing that abortion is more similar to the latter case than the first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 It comes down to whether or not you believe a woman should be able to decide when and how she becomes a mother. Either you're for women being able to choose when to be pregnant or you're not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 5, 2012 Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 I'm not dictating anything about ways people should have sex, I'm arguing for what they should/shouldn't be able to do if they get pregnant. And I never said that vaginal sex is only for procreation, I'm stating the fact that with vaginal sex between fertile people there's a chance for pregnancy. Vaginal sex is designed by evolution to be for both pleasure and procreation. Evolution has ensured the prosperity of the human race by making sex pleasurable, which makes people to want to have sex even if they don't really want to get pregnant. Natural selection made it so humans (or whatever species they evolved from) who do not experience sexual pleasure have their populations die off and those who have sex for pleasure thrive since they're having for more sex. Evolution does not have a conscious will. It did not "design" anything. The products of evolution are the results of millions of random events, and how those events interact with their environment. As for the prosperity of the human race, it is not "ensured" by evolution or by anything else. However, the most powerful tool that evolution has given the human species is the ability to develop technology. That ability has given our species more prosperity than any other single characteristic. And that technology happens to includes birth control and abortion. These technologies allow humans to better control their rates of population growth keeping them to sustainable and desirable levels, as determined on an individual basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 5, 2012 Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 Yes both cases I mentioned of ending life support are "killing". And I never said whether it's morally ok or not to end a life that's dependent on a machine. But to take a stance, I would say it's morally ok to pull life-support in the first case (hopeless vegetative state) but not ok with other (patient with good prospects of recovering to decent health). And I'm arguing that abortion is more similar to the latter case than the first. But what is nature of the life support machine in question? Imagine that to work, this machine had to have a healthy human hooked up to it, whose blood, nutrients, and energy were used by the machine to keep the patient alive until such time as they hopefully recover. Should it be within the power of the government to force an unwilling individual to be hooked up to this machine so as to provide the care needed to keep the patient alive? That is a truer analogy. A pregnant woman must not be regarded as merely a life support machine. She is a human, an individual, with her own rights and freedoms. The state cannot force someone against their will to provide life support functions for another individual, whatever the future prospects of that individual may be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 5, 2012 Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 To add to your point, Bonam, this is true even if the woman is responsible for the person's condition that makes them require life support. It is not an ethical requirement for her to use her body as life support. It might be nice. You may feel it's the right thing for her to do. However, she must not be used as simply a means to an end. She is an end in and of herself -- a free, sovereign individual with complete autonomy over the functions of her body. Imagine a state that is allowed to violate this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 5, 2012 Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 To add to your point, Bonam, this is true even if the woman is responsible for the person's condition that makes them require life support. It is not an ethical requirement for her to use her body as life support. It might be nice. You may feel it's the right thing for her to do. However, she must not be used as simply a means to an end. She is an end in and of herself -- a free, sovereign individual with complete autonomy over the functions of her body. Imagine a state that is allowed to violate this. Agreed. I would still take the point further, however, and argue that it is not only direct physical use of one's body that the state must not be allowed to impose in this way. The freedom to use or not use one's body to support another life is only one freedom among many that must be held inviolate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) A pregnant woman must not be regarded as merely a life support machine. She is a human, an individual, with her own rights and freedoms. The state cannot force someone against their will to provide life support functions for another individual, whatever the future prospects of that individual may be. But it's her natural function to nurture and care for that baby in her womb. So yes, you could say she is THE life support "machine" of that baby in the womb. That's motherhood. I suppose even the theory of evolution will agree with me on that. Edited August 5, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) To add to your point, Bonam, this is true even if the woman is responsible for the person's condition that makes them require life support. It is not an ethical requirement for her to use her body as life support. It might be nice. You may feel it's the right thing for her to do. However, she must not be used as simply a means to an end. She is an end in and of herself -- a free, sovereign individual with complete autonomy over the functions of her body. Imagine a state that is allowed to violate this. Ethics? We bring in ethics.....when what we're talking about is NATURAL function? She's shirking from her natural function and natural responsibility, to say the least.... I guess it shouldn't be an ethical requirement for fathers to provide support to their spawns....or to help the mother nurture their children. Edited August 5, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) The freedom to use or not use one's body to support another life is only one freedom among many that must be held inviolate. Therefore fathers can claim the same "right." Why should they be forced to use and exert their body any more than they want (physically and mentally - by working) just so to support another life? The mother wants to experience motherhood and raise a child, then she can fend for herself and the child. Why should she place a limit on the father's "right" and "freedom"? What gives her the "right" to have her own slave just so she can exercise her maternal instinct? Edited August 5, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 David and Ginger Twitchell, a Christian Science couple from Massachusetts who relied on prayer rather than on doctors as their young son lay dying from an obstructed bowel, were convicted of involuntary manslaughter last month. link I don't know anything about Christian Science denomination. For all I know it could've been a sect...or another cult like that Jones cult who killed everyone with cyanide kool-aid. We're not talking sect or cult here. I've never heard my church preach that we should only rely on prayers and not use science to heal us! In fact, we do pray for our members (among others) who are in the hospital for some reasons or another. What's wrong with medical science, btw? Don't I believe that science - knowledge - came from God? Why shouldn't we use it if it came from God? Obviously science was given for a reason. Haven't I said that Christians act upon decisions? Didn't our God give us free will to make decisions in life? Your son is dying from bowel obstruction which can be remedied by normal medical procedures....then why not decide to let the God-given gift of science to save your son? Isn't it arrogant of me if let's say with medical science available to do the healing, I ignore it and "pray" and try to force the hand of God to perform a miracle instead? If medical science tried to heal and is unsuccessful....that person will live if God deems it as His will. How many times did we read doctors describe the healing of a patient as a "miracle?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 5, 2012 Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 But it's her natural function to nurture and care for that baby in her womb.Then you disagree that she should have control over when and how she becomes pregnant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 5, 2012 Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 Ethics? We bring in ethics.....when what we're talking about is NATURAL function? She's shirking from her natural function and natural responsibility, to say the least.... Natural responsibility now? Again, does a woman not have a choice over when she should be pregnant? When you have sex was it only to get pregnant every single time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 5, 2012 Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 Therefore fathers can claim the same "right." Why should they be forced to use and exert their body any more than they want (physically and mentally - by working) just so to support another life? The mother wants to experience motherhood and raise a child, then she can fend for herself and the child. Why should she place a limit on the father's "right" and "freedom"? What gives her the "right" to have her own slave just so she can exercise her maternal instinct? They're not forced to have a job. If they don't have a job, they can't very well pay.Also how on earth can you compare another human being growing inside of you, using your body as an incubator, and going through excruciating pain evacuating this human from your body to having a job and paying child support? They're not even remotely comparable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) Then you disagree that she should have control over when and how she becomes pregnant? Naturally, she's always had control! Heck, even UNnaturally....she's been given by science and society to have that control. What more does she need? Shouldn't she exert a bit of responsibility....and accountability? What I want to know is how far back will you guys bend down to assuage what I can only imagine to be some sort of a collective humongous guilt-trip that you (society) will be willing to empower women with the right to kill. We see now that you willingly and unceremoniously stripped the rights and sacrifice the life of the unborn. Perhaps 10 years from now, we'll be arguing and debating about how you are murdering the non-viable toddlers? Edited August 5, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 5, 2012 Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 And then AW will tell those who protests against it: "But they don't even call it murder. See? It's called "mercy snuffing." It's an "act of mercy." Just saw this ignorant edit to your post - please don't speak for me. Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.