Abortion

[Bomb#20]

I know we are off topic, but I'd like to explain how someone can die peacefully from dehydration, ...
I've never seen anyone die as peacefully as the woman who died of dehydration,...
Of course, if we were all permitted to die quickly when the end was near, a lethal injection would probably be easier than transitioning slowly from life to death.

Having written all that, the dying process of a person is totally unrelated to ending a pregnancy.

I don't agree that we're off topic. I brought this up for a reason.

No matter how good we get at making dehydration less horrific than dying of thirst in the desert, of course, as you say, a lethal injection would probably be easier than transitioning slowly from life to death. We don't do it that way because we are not permitted to. But we are permitted to moisten the mouth and give atropine and morphine to make it less horrific. If caregivers really took a hands-off approach and left her to die in a virtual desert in the middle of a city, she would ask for help, or if she couldn't, she would visibly suffer the normal effects of dehydration and cry out in misery. And then someone would take pity on her and call the paramedics, who'd rig a saline drip and rehydrate her. So the hospice nurses, the most effective care givers if one is dying and wants the most peaceful death possible, are taking action to actually speed her death along as fast as they are allowed to. Which is to say, they are de facto killing her. And they're doing it because it's the right thing to do. They should kill her as painlessly and quickly as possible, but they only kill her as painlessly and quickly as permitted. I.e. quicker and more painless possible methods should be permitted.

Why aren't they permitted when the slower and more painful methods are permitted? They aren't permitted because we maintain the legal and conceptual fiction that hospice nurses aren't killing her -- they're just "letting her die". And we maintain that fiction because we need to maintain it in order to avoid the horrific alternative of a real death "by natural causes". And the reason that horrific alternative is lying in wait for us on the far side of the lie we tell ourselves about hospice nurses is because we make a moral distinction between killing someone and letting her die. When we need to lie to ourselves to shield morality from the implications of our moral theory, that's a red flag that our moral theory belongs in the trash heap.

The previous poster wrote 'Abortions are not necessarily "killings" for this reason, though, and we can dispense with the connotations that brings. They DO necessarily lead to a death, but the death is not generally the goal.'. Yes, they're killings. He was relying for his analysis of abortion on the customary moral distinction we make between killing someone and letting her die. Since that distinction is unsound, his analysis was unsound. We need to take the bull by the horns and justify killing fetuses.

 

[Jarhyn]

I know we are off topic, but I'd like to explain how someone can die peacefully from dehydration, ...
I've never seen anyone die as peacefully as the woman who died of dehydration,...
Of course, if we were all permitted to die quickly when the end was near, a lethal injection would probably be easier than transitioning slowly from life to death.

Having written all that, the dying process of a person is totally unrelated to ending a pregnancy.

I don't agree that we're off topic. I brought this up for a reason.

No matter how good we get at making dehydration less horrific than dying of thirst in the desert, of course, as you say, a lethal injection would probably be easier than transitioning slowly from life to death. We don't do it that way because we are not permitted to. But we are permitted to moisten the mouth and give atropine and morphine to make it less horrific. If caregivers really took a hands-off approach and left her to die in a virtual desert in the middle of a city, she would ask for help, or if she couldn't, she would visibly suffer the normal effects of dehydration and cry out in misery. And then someone would take pity on her and call the paramedics, who'd rig a saline drip and rehydrate her. So the hospice nurses, the most effective care givers if one is dying and wants the most peaceful death possible, are taking action to actually speed her death along as fast as they are allowed to. Which is to say, they are de facto killing her. And they're doing it because it's the right thing to do. They should kill her as painlessly and quickly as possible, but they only kill her as painlessly and quickly as permitted. I.e. quicker and more painless possible methods should be permitted.

Why aren't they permitted when the slower and more painful methods are permitted? They aren't permitted because we maintain the legal and conceptual fiction that hospice nurses aren't killing her -- they're just "letting her die". And we maintain that fiction because we need to maintain it in order to avoid the horrific alternative of a real death "by natural causes". And the reason that horrific alternative is lying in wait for us on the far side of the lie we tell ourselves about hospice nurses is because we make a moral distinction between killing someone and letting her die. When we need to lie to ourselves to shield morality from the implications of our moral theory, that's a red flag that our moral theory belongs in the trash heap.

The previous poster wrote 'Abortions are not necessarily "killings" for this reason, though, and we can dispense with the connotations that brings. They DO necessarily lead to a death, but the death is not generally the goal.'. Yes, they're killings. He was relying for his analysis of abortion on the customary moral distinction we make between killing someone and letting her die. Since that distinction is unsound, his analysis was unsound. We need to take the bull by the horns and justify killing fetuses.

No. They aren't killings.

And for that matter, as I've brought up before not all killings are unethical either.

I reject your notion that it must be a "killing".

I don't rely on a moral distinction between the two. I rely on a fairly important ETHICAL distinction that one may be done irrespective of consent of the second party, whereas the other requires consent or non-personhood lest it be as I have referred it "homicide", something that carries a need for corrections.

If there isn't a person there, though, and cannot ever be, the point is moot.

The point is that, and I can't believe you need this laid out for you but w/e: it is completely ethical to revoke consent to the provision of organ-use; revocation of consent will necessarily mean there cannot ever be a person made of that clump of cells; at that point, it is not unethical to kill the thing.

That middle part is important in the process of ethical justification of this particular killing agnostic to consent: it is already dying far short of any attainment of personhood as the result of ethical and justified actions, and no mercy may save it, thus the remaining mercy is to kill it.

The importance of having an available unilateral action that ethically leads to somethings immediate death means once that action is taken, assuming that personhood cannot exist in the remaining frame of life, killing is ethical.

But you have to first have done something within the ethical bounds of action that first put their death in the frame in which they are either consenting or inevitably unable to attain personhood.

There are additional cases in which it's entirely within the rights of someone else to take up mercy when available, so situations where personA revokes care so as to kill a temporarily mentally incapacitated person as a product of that revocation so as to justify killing them would allow personB or even a reasonable call for personB to continue care.

But the point here is that there can be no continuity of care to a fetus, nor is such transfer a reasonable expectation even were it.

If it is going to fail, fail it faster, but the failure has to come from an ethically justifiable event

 

[southernhybrid]

I know we are off topic, but I'd like to explain how someone can die peacefully from dehydration, ...
I've never seen anyone die as peacefully as the woman who died of dehydration,...
Of course, if we were all permitted to die quickly when the end was near, a lethal injection would probably be easier than transitioning slowly from life to death.

Having written all that, the dying process of a person is totally unrelated to ending a pregnancy.

I don't agree that we're off topic. I brought this up for a reason.

No matter how good we get at making dehydration less horrific than dying of thirst in the desert, of course, as you say, a lethal injection would probably be easier than transitioning slowly from life to death. We don't do it that way because we are not permitted to. But we are permitted to moisten the mouth and give atropine and morphine to make it less horrific. If caregivers really took a hands-off approach and left her to die in a virtual desert in the middle of a city, she would ask for help, or if she couldn't, she would visibly suffer the normal effects of dehydration and cry out in misery. And then someone would take pity on her and call the paramedics, who'd rig a saline drip and rehydrate her. So the hospice nurses, the most effective care givers if one is dying and wants the most peaceful death possible, are taking action to actually speed her death along as fast as they are allowed to. Which is to say, they are de facto killing her. And they're doing it because it's the right thing to do. They should kill her as painlessly and quickly as possible, but they only kill her as painlessly and quickly as permitted. I.e. quicker and more painless possible methods should be permitted.

Why aren't they permitted when the slower and more painful methods are permitted? They aren't permitted because we maintain the legal and conceptual fiction that hospice nurses aren't killing her -- they're just "letting her die". And we maintain that fiction because we need to maintain it in order to avoid the horrific alternative of a real death "by natural causes". And the reason that horrific alternative is lying in wait for us on the far side of the lie we tell ourselves about hospice nurses is because we make a moral distinction between killing someone and letting her die. When we need to lie to ourselves to shield morality from the implications of our moral theory, that's a red flag that our moral theory belongs in the trash heap.

The previous poster wrote 'Abortions are not necessarily "killings" for this reason, though, and we can dispense with the connotations that brings. They DO necessarily lead to a death, but the death is not generally the goal.'. Yes, they're killings. He was relying for his analysis of abortion on the customary moral distinction we make between killing someone and letting her die. Since that distinction is unsound, his analysis was unsound. We need to take the bull by the horns and justify killing fetuses.

How many terminally ill people have you watched die? I ask because what you have written regarding dehydration in a dying person isn't true. Let me give you some idea how people with advanced dementia used to die. When I became an RN, in 1975, it was very common to insert an NG ( horrid things ) or a G-tube, less horrid but still used to prolong suffering. That was long before we had Advanced Directives or Living Wills as some refer to them. I've seen totally dependent, confused people linger on for years being fed by tubes, sometimes developing decubitus ulcers, aka bed sores. Some of these sores became so large that they went all the way to the bone. This was most common when a family tried to care for someone but didn't have enough help, but it also happens in nursing homes. In fact, due to staffing shortages, it's becoming more common according to an article I read this week. If you've ever seen a stage 4 decubitus, you know how horrible they are, and how much suffering they cause. A hospice nurse isn't "letting someone die". They are just providing as much comfort as possible when someone is dying. One must have a life expectancy of less than 6 months to be eligible for hospice care.

. I can give you another case regarding how being well hydrated can cause unimaginable suffering. About 20 years ago, I did some part time home health work. Sometimes I was sent to visit a man in his 90s, who was being fed by a G-tube. He was developing bed sores and whenever I drove up to his house, I could hear him screaming, "Jesus, Jesus, take me now. Please Lord, take me now". He didn't have hospice at that point because the tube feedings made it impossible to get a doctor to claim he had 6 months or less to live. Can't you see that giving him feedings via a tube was only prolonging his suffering? Imo, and probably in his opinion, allowing him to die naturally would have caused far less suffering. I have had patients who chose tube feedings, but they were cognitively intact and in at least one case, fully independent. That's a very different scenario.

I've seen people given hydration when they were close to death. It only made them suffer more as they entered the dying process. I've watched it. It's quite awful, compared to the peaceful way that my former patient died. And, here's the thing. The woman I mentioned was about to have a G-tube inserted because nobody knew if she had an Advanced Directive. But, at the last minute, her brother, who was her only close family member, found her Advanced Directive, which clearly stated that she didn't want to be tube fed, not under any circumstances. I'm not against voluntary euthanasia. I'd even support it, if a person was permitted to request that way to go, if they ended up with dementia. But, the states that allow it, only allow it when the person is still in her right mind. Plus, the majority of people don't want to be euthanized. I know the person I mentioned didn't suffer during the dying process, She was peaceful and comfortable, so considering the only other option was to keep her alive with tube feedings, I think the treatment she received was the most humane option available.

My late mother in law chose to end her dialysis treatments after she had a stroke at age 89. She wanted to die. The stroke cause her to be aphasic, but she smiled when family members visited to say goodbye. The only thing that made her suffer toward the end, was my ex sister in law's insistence that she eat and drink. It was hard on my brother in law to watch his mother's lungs fill up with fluid, etc. He was the one who stayed with her on the night she died. I wasn't in any position to tell anyone what to do, but I do believe she would have suffered less if my sister in law didn't keep pushing fluids on her, that she didn't really want. We're all going to die, so if we are terminally ill, why not try to make the experience as comfortable as possible?

I'm not interested in arguing about abortion at this point because just about everyone has made up their minds, and imo, the decision to abort is one that only the woman who is pregnant can make. If the term woman offends anyone, then use whatever pronoun you prefer when discussing this issue. An embryo isn't a person. At best, it's a potential person, but nature causes far more abortions compared to medical abortions. It's none of my business if a woman feels she needs to choose an abortion. It's a personal decision, one that should remain private between her and her medical provider.

My purpose for posting in this thread, regardless if it was off topic or not, was to describe how one can have a peaceful death if they are dehydrated, since there seemed to be some confusion or misunderstanding regarding that.

 

[Bomb#20]

How many terminally ill people have you watched die?

One.

I ask because what you have written regarding dehydration in a dying person isn't true.

Can you narrow that down please? What specific sentences did I write that you think aren't true?

<lots of obviously correct and sensible and compassionate material snipped>

I don't disagree with any of that; I just can't see why you think it conflicts with what I said. I'm absolutely on the same side of this issue as you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why aren't they permitted when the slower and more painful methods are permitted? They aren't permitted because we maintain the legal and conceptual fiction that hospice nurses aren't killing her -- they're just "letting her die". And we maintain that fiction because we need to maintain it in order to avoid the horrific alternative of a real death "by natural causes". And the reason that horrific alternative is lying in wait for us on the far side of the lie we tell ourselves about hospice nurses is because we make a moral distinction between killing someone and letting her die. When we need to lie to ourselves to shield morality from the implications of our moral theory, that's a red flag that our moral theory belongs in the trash heap.

What is all this 'we' shit? We aren't allowed to let people go away peacefully because others insist it is ungodly.

The previous poster wrote 'Abortions are not necessarily "killings" for this reason, though, and we can dispense with the connotations that brings. They DO necessarily lead to a death, but the death is not generally the goal.'. Yes, they're killings. He was relying for his analysis of abortion on the customary moral distinction we make between killing someone and letting her die. Since that distinction is unsound, his analysis was unsound. We need to take the bull by the horns and justify killing fetuses.

Seeing that their goal is women back in the homes and has nothing to do with the fetus, your goal seems incredibly misguided. Euthanasia (if we even want to call it that as a person is already at end of life plus or minus a couple weeks) and abortion have very little in common. For instance, the alive person in the fetus case is the pregnant woman.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why aren't they permitted when the slower and more painful methods are permitted? They aren't permitted because we maintain the legal and conceptual fiction that hospice nurses aren't killing her -- they're just "letting her die". And we maintain that fiction ... because we make a moral distinction between killing someone and letting her die. When we need to lie to ourselves to shield morality from the implications of our moral theory, that's a red flag that our moral theory belongs in the trash heap.

What is all this 'we' ...? We aren't allowed to let people go away peacefully because others insist it is ungodly.

"We" as in the American people collectively -- the ones you include as "we" plus the ones you other as "others". We are allowed to let people go away peacefully. Just not as peacefully as we could, because many who think the slow way is godly insist the quick way is ungodly because they unsoundly distinguish between killing and letting die. Regardless of whether those who think that way are labeled "we" or "others", it seems to me the rest of us should avoid emulating their thinking.

The previous poster wrote 'Abortions are not necessarily "killings" for this reason, though, and we can dispense with the connotations that brings. They DO necessarily lead to a death, but the death is not generally the goal.'. Yes, they're killings. He was relying for his analysis of abortion on the customary moral distinction we make between killing someone and letting her die. Since that distinction is unsound, his analysis was unsound. We need to take the bull by the horns and justify killing fetuses.

Seeing that their goal is women back in the homes and has nothing to do with the fetus, your goal seems incredibly misguided.

My goal here is correct reasoning; I don't see how anything somebody else's goal might be makes correct reasoning on our part a misguided goal. Why are you lecturing me about their goal -- do you think people whose goal is women back in the homes and has nothing to do with the fetus will be persuaded to back off by reassurances that abortion is not killing the fetus but just letting it die? Go lecture Jarhyn about their goal.

 

[SIB]

The only two arguments I don't accept are "God said so" and "Its my body my choice."

I posted in another thread, define what a human is. Does a fetus fit that description?". When does it fit the description.

Blue prints, raw materials, and an automated assembly processes doesn't make it human to me. It definitely is a possible human. Heck, I see "mature adults" that I wouldn't call "human(e)"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The only two arguments I don't accept are "God said so" and "Its my body my choice."

What other choices regarding a woman's body do you reserve oversight on? It isn't simply an issue of 'it is happening inside them', it is an issue of 'long after the baby has been born, the consequences of the pregnancy to their body will continue for varying periods of time for varying issues (physical and mental)'.

 

[Jarhyn]

The only two arguments I don't accept are "God said so" and "Its my body my choice."

I posted in another thread, define what a human is. Does a fetus fit that description?". When does it fit the description.

Blue prints, raw materials, and an automated assembly processes doesn't make it human to me. It definitely is a possible human. Heck, I see "mature adults" that I wouldn't call "human(e)"

I delineate a major difference between "human" and "person". I've seen dogs I'd call people and humans I would consider not, and almost certainly not even 'potential' people, Just straight up "non-persons". One such is bloated and orange colored. Such comically clear "non-persons" humans are few and far between, and I would give almost anyone else the benefit of the doubt as to their potential, even if I disagree on letting them be about without guardian supervision.

I find "humanism" to be an oddly bigoted term.

 

[SIB]

The only two arguments I don't accept are "God said so" and "Its my body my choice."

What other choices regarding a woman's body do you reserve oversight on? It isn't simply an issue of 'it is happening inside them', it is an issue of 'long after the baby has been born, the consequences of the pregnancy to their body will continue for varying periods of time for varying issues (physical and mental)'.

Its inside her body, but its not her body. The body goes to great lengths to keep the mothers body from "eating" the baby's body (possible baby's body).

Be that as it may, I find when people can defend their stance on this without those two the arguments the arguement seem to become more reliable. Either way.

 

[bilby]

Its inside her body, but its not her body. The body goes to great lengths to keep the mothers body from "eating" the baby's body (possible baby's body).

There’s a reason why a human body attacks, destroys, and re-absorbs ‘non-self’ tissues very aggressively (thereby requiring “great lengths” to prevent this from happening to a fetus).

Non-self, but 100% human, tissues spontaneously arise in our bodies all the time, and failure to destroy these is typically fatal, so we have evolved strong defences against this kind of cellular parasitism. There are very few biologically accurate arguments against abortion, that couldn’t equally be used to argue against the removal of cancers. Being a “living human individual” isn’t the same as being a person, unless melanoma is a person*.








*And if she was, she would never have married donald.

 

[lostone]

The only two arguments I don't accept are "God said so" and "Its my body my choice."

I posted in another thread, define what a human is. Does a fetus fit that description?". When does it fit the description.

Blue prints, raw materials, and an automated assembly processes doesn't make it human to me. It definitely is a possible human. Heck, I see "mature adults" that I wouldn't call "human(e)"

Sometimes I'm not sure I'm human, and sometimes I'm not even sure that being human is any complement

 

[TomC]

Sometimes I'm not sure I'm human,

That's all so post modern edgy. Superbly nihilistic, in a completely fake sort of way.

I don't believe for one second that you'd express that opinion if claiming human status would get you something you want. Like a jury trial or a credit card or anything that only humans get or have any right to expect.

and sometimes I'm not even sure that being human is any complement

It's not a complement particularly.
Tom

 

[lostone]

I'm sure I would do as you say. I am no saint, but I want life to be as pain free as possible, for for all of us.

 

[pood]

Sometimes I'm not sure I'm human,

That's all so post modern edgy. Superbly nihilistic, in a completely fake sort of way.

I don't believe for one second that you'd express that opinion if claiming human status would get you something you want. Like a jury trial or a credit card or anything that only humans get or have any right to expect.

and sometimes I'm not even sure that being human is any complement

It's not a complement particularly.
Tom

Maybe you’d like to address these questions to you I put in another thread:

And how do you reconcile “Science doesn’t have any moral messages to give” with attacking people for failing ”to use science to inform your moral code”? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

And:

Perhaps I should make this even clearer: When you write, “but all the baby killers keep changing the subject,” could you name a single person here who has advocated killing babies? Still more, ALL the baby killers? There is not just one?

Even more to the point, you did not say people here advocate baby killing, you said they ARE baby killers. Are you prepared to defend this?

 

[TomC]

Maybe you’d like to address these questions to you I put in another thread

Why would I even bother responding to a bunch of strawmanning, much less like it?
Tom

 

[pood]

Maybe you’d like to address these questions to you I put in another thread

Why would I even bother responding to a bunch of strawmanning, much less like it?
Tom

Strawmanning? Those are your exact quotes. “Baby killers” is your quote. The contradictory statements about science — first that science has no moral message to give, and then castigating those who, according to you, fail to use science to inform their moral code, are YOUR QUOTES.

Would you care to defend or explain YOUR QUOTES, which, since they ARE your quotes, having nothing to do with any strawmen?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The only two arguments I don't accept are "God said so" and "Its my body my choice."

What other choices regarding a woman's body do you reserve oversight on? It isn't simply an issue of 'it is happening inside them', it is an issue of 'long after the baby has been born, the consequences of the pregnancy to their body will continue for varying periods of time for varying issues (physical and mental)'.

Its inside her body, but its not her body. The body goes to great lengths to keep the mothers body from "eating" the baby's body (possible baby's body).

I am talking about the Mother's body. That is what takes the physical and mental and psychological toll of pregnancy and birth.

 

[SIB]

The only two arguments I don't accept are "God said so" and "Its my body my choice."

What other choices regarding a woman's body do you reserve oversight on? It isn't simply an issue of 'it is happening inside them', it is an issue of 'long after the baby has been born, the consequences of the pregnancy to their body will continue for varying periods of time for varying issues (physical and mental)'.

Its inside her body, but its not her body. The body goes to great lengths to keep the mothers body from "eating" the baby's body (possible baby's body).

I am talking about the Mother's body. That is what takes the physical and mental and psychological toll of pregnancy and birth.

Yuppers, and thats at the heart of it.

You changed it to focus on two separate "bodies". Which, as a point of fact, I did. So the question then becomes when does the mother's choice to do what they want get over ridden by the act of "murder". We know when it exits the mother can't just say "my body my choice". No matter what. we then circle back to the original "when is it human?"

All I am really saying is just present the argument for/against without those two statements. Pro choice leaves out "My body my choice." and the pro lifers leave out "because god said so." I kind of think people doing that might actually make them think just a tad deeper.

 

[SIB]

The only two arguments I don't accept are "God said so" and "Its my body my choice."

I posted in another thread, define what a human is. Does a fetus fit that description?". When does it fit the description.

Blue prints, raw materials, and an automated assembly processes doesn't make it human to me. It definitely is a possible human. Heck, I see "mature adults" that I wouldn't call "human(e)"

Sometimes I'm not sure I'm human, and sometimes I'm not even sure that being human is any complement

Amen brother.
or sister or sibling