Sunday, November 05, 2006
Active Euthanasia
Found this article online.
"We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term, but cannot kill a newborn," he told The Sunday Times. "What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it OK to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not the other?"
If we can justify killing a fetus, because it's not alive yet, because it hasn't been born yet and therefore isn't a citizen and so it doesn't have any rights, then why can't we justify killing a newborn? I mean, really, what's the difference? In fact, the whole first year of life a human is barely able to interact with the world around it. I mean, what's the difference between a fetus and a 6-month-old baby? And while we're talking about incoherancy, what about the elderly who suffer from Alzheimer's? It would be merciful to shorten the "years of emotional and financial suffering" for those who are unfairly given the burden of having to care for such people. And since they barely know what's going on.... I mean, what's the big difference between an elderly Alzheimer's patient and a fetus? What about prisoners? Anyone who can't obey the government is just going to have "years of emotional and financial suffering," and if we were a merciful people, we would put them out of their misery and make room for their time and space and assets to be used by other more worthy people. In fact, anyone who doesn't agree with the policies of the current administration shouldn't have to suffer under their leadership. It would be merciful to end their suffering. We should get to choose, after all, who lives and who doesn't.
Where will it end?
"We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term, but cannot kill a newborn," he told The Sunday Times. "What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it OK to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not the other?"
If we can justify killing a fetus, because it's not alive yet, because it hasn't been born yet and therefore isn't a citizen and so it doesn't have any rights, then why can't we justify killing a newborn? I mean, really, what's the difference? In fact, the whole first year of life a human is barely able to interact with the world around it. I mean, what's the difference between a fetus and a 6-month-old baby? And while we're talking about incoherancy, what about the elderly who suffer from Alzheimer's? It would be merciful to shorten the "years of emotional and financial suffering" for those who are unfairly given the burden of having to care for such people. And since they barely know what's going on.... I mean, what's the big difference between an elderly Alzheimer's patient and a fetus? What about prisoners? Anyone who can't obey the government is just going to have "years of emotional and financial suffering," and if we were a merciful people, we would put them out of their misery and make room for their time and space and assets to be used by other more worthy people. In fact, anyone who doesn't agree with the policies of the current administration shouldn't have to suffer under their leadership. It would be merciful to end their suffering. We should get to choose, after all, who lives and who doesn't.
Where will it end?
# posted by Adam @ 7:58 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Actually, as a Dr there are ways to kill adults and geriatrics. A doctor is allowed to administer enough morphine to 'stop the pain', even if this is a lethal amount of morphine. This of course doesn't even touch on DNR's, feeding tubes or ventillators.
The main difference between inside the uterus and outside, is that the mom is still supporting it. I wont debate the issue here, but I do think that makes a difference, even if one considers it a small one.
The main difference between inside the uterus and outside, is that the mom is still supporting it. I wont debate the issue here, but I do think that makes a difference, even if one considers it a small one.
Thank you for responding, Crystal.
I'm not as concerned about voluntary euthanasia, things like DNR orders, etc. And I understand that with all of our technology to keep people alive much longer comes the responsibility of knowing when to pull the plug.
I acknowledge that there is a difference between unborn and born (I personally believe that a fetus is a life from conception, but I'll put that aside for now). My problem is that this guy seems to be taking the semi-logical next step of "well, if we can abort the fetus at 9 months, why can't we birth the baby and euthanize it?" I hope that enough people are outraged by this step that even a more moderate view would consider this thought to be preposterous.
It is a moral question, but it is a morality that must be legislated at some point. If we are going to permit abortions at all, where is the stopping point? If we are going to euthanize at all, how are we going to do so responisbly? If we are going to grant legal permission, we need to establish legal parameters.
I'm not as concerned about voluntary euthanasia, things like DNR orders, etc. And I understand that with all of our technology to keep people alive much longer comes the responsibility of knowing when to pull the plug.
I acknowledge that there is a difference between unborn and born (I personally believe that a fetus is a life from conception, but I'll put that aside for now). My problem is that this guy seems to be taking the semi-logical next step of "well, if we can abort the fetus at 9 months, why can't we birth the baby and euthanize it?" I hope that enough people are outraged by this step that even a more moderate view would consider this thought to be preposterous.
It is a moral question, but it is a morality that must be legislated at some point. If we are going to permit abortions at all, where is the stopping point? If we are going to euthanize at all, how are we going to do so responisbly? If we are going to grant legal permission, we need to establish legal parameters.
I guess for me, I see the need for legal parameters but finding common ground is difficult in something like this. The government has found legislating morals to be a difficult thing, see we all have different ones.
My views on abortion and euthanasia are so 'liberal' I can't even see the 'conservatives' from where I stand, I barely catch a glimps of the 'moderates' at that. Though I am not so crazy that I would be unwilling to comprimise to ensure that abortions stay legal in some forms. But I would continue to fight for more and more abortion rights.
How do you satisfy people like me who feel that no matter how 'alive' that fetus is, its a parasite on the mother and if she wants it out, she can kick it out. And the people who are more conservative/moderate like yourself who feel that removing a fetus at end of term is equivalent to murder.
I am also of the midset that a severaly, 'defective' or 'mutated' child (I don't want to say retarded because that doesn't cover it all) should be allowed to die peacefully with out its parents forcing it to stay alive because they harbor an insane hope of it leading a normal life.
Many of the kids we keep alive today, do not even really know that they are alive. I am not talking about terminal childhood (some one expected to live to 5 and have some sort of a life) but those kids who are born in a vegetative like state. This doesn't even touch on the burden on health care, schooling and the parents. Is that really 'alive'? But I digress
Its something we will both probably never agree on. We may understand the -why- each of us feels this way, but we would never vote for the same legislation. So how do you satisfy the masses when their moral views on the subject are different. Its not something you can truely comprimise on because it will always be win lose. Every time one side gains ground the other loses.
So perhaps we can have legislation, but no one will ever be happy with it (except those who stand exactally where we draw the line).
My views on abortion and euthanasia are so 'liberal' I can't even see the 'conservatives' from where I stand, I barely catch a glimps of the 'moderates' at that. Though I am not so crazy that I would be unwilling to comprimise to ensure that abortions stay legal in some forms. But I would continue to fight for more and more abortion rights.
How do you satisfy people like me who feel that no matter how 'alive' that fetus is, its a parasite on the mother and if she wants it out, she can kick it out. And the people who are more conservative/moderate like yourself who feel that removing a fetus at end of term is equivalent to murder.
I am also of the midset that a severaly, 'defective' or 'mutated' child (I don't want to say retarded because that doesn't cover it all) should be allowed to die peacefully with out its parents forcing it to stay alive because they harbor an insane hope of it leading a normal life.
Many of the kids we keep alive today, do not even really know that they are alive. I am not talking about terminal childhood (some one expected to live to 5 and have some sort of a life) but those kids who are born in a vegetative like state. This doesn't even touch on the burden on health care, schooling and the parents. Is that really 'alive'? But I digress
Its something we will both probably never agree on. We may understand the -why- each of us feels this way, but we would never vote for the same legislation. So how do you satisfy the masses when their moral views on the subject are different. Its not something you can truely comprimise on because it will always be win lose. Every time one side gains ground the other loses.
So perhaps we can have legislation, but no one will ever be happy with it (except those who stand exactally where we draw the line).
So I have been giving this a lot of thought really. Trying to find some way that it could be win win for both sides, but I am afraid, I am coming up blank.
I thought for a while perhaps if a mother did not want a child we could induce labor and if the child could survive on its own then so be it. This would allow a mother to terminate the pregnancy with out the termination of 'life'.
But this would be risky to the mother and, in very early stages the fetus might not be 'birthed' and contunue to grow in the womb. But perhaps it could be used as an end stage 'abortion' where inducing labor would be less risky.
This does however bring up the question of, who will take care of or pay for the medical bills of these 'early birth' children. The earlier a baby is born the more money it needs to survive. Also early births run the risk of life long complicated health problems. We would potentially be bringing into the world quite a few children who would not live normal lives in any way.
So would it really be saving a life to bring a child into the world early and have it sevearly impaired for life?
I am very interested in your thoughts on this subject Adam. Would this sort of compromise fit a more Christian or conservative or moderate for that matter, view? Does any one have any other oppinions on what might be win win for both sides?
Post a Comment
I thought for a while perhaps if a mother did not want a child we could induce labor and if the child could survive on its own then so be it. This would allow a mother to terminate the pregnancy with out the termination of 'life'.
But this would be risky to the mother and, in very early stages the fetus might not be 'birthed' and contunue to grow in the womb. But perhaps it could be used as an end stage 'abortion' where inducing labor would be less risky.
This does however bring up the question of, who will take care of or pay for the medical bills of these 'early birth' children. The earlier a baby is born the more money it needs to survive. Also early births run the risk of life long complicated health problems. We would potentially be bringing into the world quite a few children who would not live normal lives in any way.
So would it really be saving a life to bring a child into the world early and have it sevearly impaired for life?
I am very interested in your thoughts on this subject Adam. Would this sort of compromise fit a more Christian or conservative or moderate for that matter, view? Does any one have any other oppinions on what might be win win for both sides?
<< Home
