[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How does one decide whether this version of "smaller, less intrusive government" should include a health care mandate or abortion choices, for instance?

I'll start from the beginning:

• Pro-Lifers believe abortion is taking the life of a person.
• Those who champion a smaller, less intrusive government are generally not interested in eliminating homicide law.
• These same folks may express a problem with legislation that requires you to pay a fee into a commercial interest to offset the cost of health care for others; legislation that exacerbates the societal ill it seeks to mitigate and affects everyone in the country regardless of personal choices, behaviors, and consent.

By failing to acknowledge the premise of those who disagree with you on a given issue, there are a wealth of facetious inconsistencies such as the penalty for killing a certain kind of bird or "sin" taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, seat belt laws, etc...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Otherwise, birth control is not near as destructive to the mother (that we know of) as abortion.

From the World Health Org.
Carcinogenicity of combined hormonal contraceptives and combined menopausal treatment

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How does one decide whether this version of "smaller, less intrusive government" should include a health care mandate or abortion choices, for instance?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

People can choose coverage deductibles and co-pays. They should also be allowed to choose what is covered as well. Why should someone who is incapable of being pregnant pay for coverage they will never use. My sister-in law had a hysterectomy in her mid thirties, yet still has to pay for pregnancy related coverage.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This thread is about abortion, I think that we shouldn't derail.

You asked a question. I suggested giving people the choice wether or not to pay for reproductive services, and gave my sister-in law as an example of someone paying for coverage she will never need.

[stupendousman]

Arbitrary?

If you allow a sperm to simply continue along it's own life cycle by itself, it will never make a grand discovery to better humankind, will never help an old lady cross the street, or buy someone a meal who is hungry. Same goes for that egg inside the woman. In fact, as a natural course, our bodies dispel and destroy this "life" on it's own.

However, at the point of fertilization, if left to it's own device the "life" in question will likely go on to lead a full and fruitful life.

If there's debate at what point this "life" is worthy of protection, then there is no need to use an arbitrary standard when we already have a clear and long-used standard which we use to determine when someone is "alive" (audible heartbeat and/or brainwaves). It makes no sense for the courts to take it upon themselves to legislate these moral issues when our founders made it clear that complex decisions regarding things they didn't specifically seek to protect should be decided on a more local level so it more accurately reflects the values of the people who have to live under the laws and not the small minority who wields the power corruptly and decides for the "little people."

[Chongo]

Now it's about when "personhood" begins, not when life begins.

[Athens]

Question, whats the difference between killing a fetus and killing a man on death row? I mean you guys already sanction murder already.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Ideally, death row inmates are guilty of something more than just being inconvenient

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Question, whats the difference between killing a fetus and killing a man on death row? I mean you guys already sanction murder already.

Just kidding. I can tell.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Question, whats the difference between killing a fetus and killing a man on death row? I mean you guys already sanction murder already.

Well, a fetus generally hasn't had the chance to completely **** up humanity yet.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I don't pretend to know what she meant on a personal basis but the wording in Chongo's posts makes no direct mention to race whatsoever. I certainly wasn't reading her personal prejudices into any part of it that I agree with.
My own usage of the term weak was in reference to genetic weakness, again nothing to do with economics. It was defective I claimed sounded harsh but ultimately its the same thing. Weakness in this case can mean anything from being disease-prone to having fragile bones or organs to simply being too stupid to cross a road without getting hit and killed. All things that evolution would select for if it were left unhindered to do so.

What of those working in the road, killed by a vehicle? Sometimes evolution is just friggin' cruel. I happen to think our knack for overcoming the deleterious affects of evolution separates us from the pygmy chimp when it comes to medical ethics, knowledge, and advancement.

I'm really not. I never said abortion, screening or elimination of the weak should be enforced, merely encouraged. The only way to do that without inciting rioting from all the brain-damaged bible thumpers is to allow people to make those choices for themselves, and try as hard as you can to teach others why sometimes its a good idea to make such a choice, instead of trying to guilt them into keeping babies they never wanted or telling they will go to hell if they don't.

I've not quoted a single verse of Scripture in opposing abortion, in this thread or anywhere else. I haven't had to... and still don't. I understand the Atheist Manifesto requires that you wear your authority problem on your sleeve and proselytize your antagonist faith for the attention-grab, but you have to discern your audience. There's no shortage of people guilting others into any decision including pro-choice. You said "enforced screening". What the hell is that if not how I've interpreted it and why can't you stand behind the statement?

In short, I thank the Christian God you are not the arbiter of weak.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Question, whats the difference between killing a fetus and killing a man on death row? I mean you guys already sanction murder already.

Choice.

One has made a choice to live a life refusing to respect the most basic rights of others. The other is innocent of all crimes.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Just kidding. I can tell.

lolol!

awesome

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Now it's about when "personhood" begins, not when life begins.

That's always been the debate. Welcome to the discussion.

There's no denial that the fetus is alive, since obviously sperm and ovum are also alive. People who phrase the debate as "when life begins" are morons.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ideally, death row inmates are guilty of something more than just being inconvenient

Except sometimes innocent people end up on death row. So we kill innocent people by mistake once in a while. We kill guilty people once in a while, in either case though people are being killed. How is killing a Fetus any different. Different reasons, maybe economic, accidental, rape related, or health issues for the mother but I mean we alread sanction killing as it is.

[Laminar]

The depth of your intellect is astounding.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Now it's about when "personhood" begins, not when life begins.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That's always been the debate. Welcome to the discussion.

There's no denial that the fetus is alive, since obviously sperm and ovum are also alive. People who phrase the debate as "when life begins" are morons.

Before it was because implantation had not not occurred.
Do you agree with these people?
William Crawley meets Peter Singer (part 1)
UK columnist Virginia Ironside

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

William Crawley meets Peter Singer (part 1)

I certainly don't agree with his animal liberation views. His infanticide views seems unnecessary, since we can screen for devastating deformities in utero, and waiting until birth seems like a stupid idea (just like waiting times for abortion, for instance). But given the single example at the end - the child born without a brain - assuming it wasn't detected earlier for some odd reason, seems reasonable to me.

I see part 2 is linked, so I'm gonna go watch that now.

UK columnist Virginia Ironside

I find it interesting that the video description misrepresents what she said. She didn't say she would smother disabled babies, she said she would smother a suffering child.

I find it interesting that we, culturally, are fine with giving our pets a peaceful death when it comes time, but we allow our children (and everyone else) to die long, horrible deaths because we are afraid of the slippery slope. But you ask if I agree with this woman, and really I don't know, because I just hadn't thought about it before now. I've pretty much assumed that the certainly of long illness until death is mitigated by pain killers and such, but frankly that's ignorance on my part since I don't really know what long term pain is like.

I think culturally we're slowly approaching a tipping point regarding self-euthanization, but I don't think infanticide is on the horizon, mostly because we see and experience adult suffering all the time, but infant suffering is hidden, and heavily mitigated by abortion, which has drastically changed the ratio of healthy births. If the public was more exposed to tragic cases, our attitudes might change, but really I'm not certain what is to come here.

[Doofy]

Athens has a good point in relation to the political sides which people take. That is...
Republican: Pro capital punishment, anti-abortion.
Democrat: Anti capital punishment, pro abortion.

Makes no sense in, say, religious terms.

[Doofy]

And nobody has yet managed to answer my ongoing question about abortion. The main pro-choice reasoning seems to be that it's the woman's body to do what she wants with, right? So why can't she sell a kidney if she wants to? How come it's only "her body, her choice" when the philosophy of this statement agrees with the left's dogma?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And nobody has yet managed to answer my ongoing question about abortion. The main pro-choice reasoning seems to be that it's the woman's body to do what she wants with, right? So why can't she sell a kidney if she wants to? How come it's only "her body, her choice" when the philosophy of this statement agrees with the left's dogma?

When abortion was initially legalized, "my body, my choice" was not the biggest motivation, but minimizing the back alley problem. The earliest advocates were all about harm reduction, and the "my body" stuff came in later with the Me generation. Today, the main slogans seem to have gone back to harm reduction, with "safe, legal, and rare" being the favoured phrase.

So why can't she sell a kidney? Because abortion wasn't primarily about "my body" for most, and you'd almost never hear a politician use that phrase to justify it.

Besides, allowing doctors to earn money by extracting kidneys for sale would be professionally unethical. Doctor cure illness, they don't mine human bodies for resources. "My body" is completely besides the point here.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Arbitrary?

If you allow a sperm to simply continue along it's own life cycle by itself, it will never make a grand discovery to better humankind, will never help an old lady cross the street, or buy someone a meal who is hungry. Same goes for that egg inside the woman. In fact, as a natural course, our bodies dispel and destroy this "life" on it's own.

If this were true, then birth control would be redundant. Obviously, some gametes "naturally" grow up to be men, even stupendous men

In the same way that gametes require assistance to become embryos, embryos require assistance to become people. In both cases, it happens "naturally" all the time.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

When abortion was initially legalized, "my body, my choice" was not the biggest motivation, but minimizing the back alley problem. The earliest advocates were all about harm reduction, and the "my body" stuff came in later with the Me generation. Today, the main slogans seem to have gone back to harm reduction, with "safe, legal, and rare" being the favoured phrase.

The same would be true of organ sale (and prostitution, the more straightforward counterpart); these also have a black market. I have to agree with Doofy, and to answer his question, I believe it's just a case where the conservatives won (or the conservative side of those liberals who were won over), whereas on abortion, it was vice versa.

Besides, allowing doctors to earn money by extracting kidneys for sale would be professionally unethical. Doctor cure illness, they don't mine human bodies for resources. "My body" is completely besides the point here.

Organ donation mines human bodies for resources. I think this professional ethics decision (the one about exchanging money) is less about ideals and more about pragmatism. It's not necessarily unethical for all parties to profit from an organ transplant, but in practice it would be impossible to prevent one side from being exploited.

The one thing I don't understand at all is why selling eggs is the one exception.

[lpkmckenna]

Selling eggs is illegal in Canada.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I certainly don't agree with his animal liberation views. His infanticide views seems unnecessary, since we can screen for devastating deformities in utero, and waiting until birth seems like a stupid idea (just like waiting times for abortion, for instance). But given the single example at the end - the child born without a brain - assuming it wasn't detected earlier for some odd reason, seems reasonable to me.

I see part 2 is linked, so I'm gonna go watch that now.
I find it interesting that the video description misrepresents what she said. She didn't say she would smother disabled babies, she said she would smother a suffering child.

I find it interesting that we, culturally, are fine with giving our pets a peaceful death when it comes time, but we allow our children (and everyone else) to die long, horrible deaths because we are afraid of the slippery slope. But you ask if I agree with this woman, and really I don't know, because I just hadn't thought about it before now. I've pretty much assumed that the certainly of long illness until death is mitigated by pain killers and such, but frankly that's ignorance on my part since I don't really know what long term pain is like.

I think culturally we're slowly approaching a tipping point regarding self-euthanization, but I don't think infanticide is on the horizon, mostly because we see and experience adult suffering all the time, but infant suffering is hidden, and heavily mitigated by abortion, which has drastically changed the ratio of healthy births. If the public was more exposed to tragic cases, our attitudes might change, but really I'm not certain what is to come here.

Since we were talking about "Gattaca" earlier in the context of genetic screening, Here is an episode of ST TNG you might find interesting. Season 4 Episode 22 "Half a Life"
Clip of the relevant dialogue:
YouTube Star Trek - Half a Life - Clip
Full episode:
videobb - Free Video Hosting - Your #1 Video Site - TNG422 Half a Life

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That's always been the debate. Welcome to the discussion.

There's no denial that the fetus is alive, since obviously sperm and ovum are also alive. People who phrase the debate as "when life begins" are morons.

I'm not sure if you are part of the discussion when you start of calling other people morons while at the same time apparently not understanding the difference between fetus cells and Gamete cells.

Blood cells are also "alive" but no sane person would consider them to be the same as a fetus. Here is the major difference between gamete and the zygote or cells in a fetus, a gamete contains genetic material from one of the parents and it supplies half of the chromosomes that will end up in the zygote. The zygote is a combination of the genetic material from the sperm and ovum and that same unique genetic code will remain the same until the the child is born.

To say that a zygote or fetus at a certain stage in development is not the same as the person that is born ignores the fact that after fertilization the cells are genetically dissimilar from either parent and the genetic code will not change at any point in that development

If we say that the child is a unique being distinct from either parent then how can we have a cutoff point? Are we next going to start killing our old people off when they cannot take care of themselves?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

I'm not sure if you are part of the discussion when you start of calling other people morons while at the same time apparently not understanding the difference between fetus cells and Gamete cells.

I didn't say there wasn't a difference. I said they were both alive. Don't shove words in my mouth.

Blood cells are also "alive" but no sane person would consider them to be the same as a fetus.

Wow, a pointless straw-man that even you admit no one could believe in. So why is this relevant to anything?

Here is the major difference between gamete and the zygote or cells in a fetus, a gamete contains genetic material from one of the parents and it supplies half of the chromosomes that will end up in the zygote. The zygote is a combination of the genetic material from the sperm and ovum and that same unique genetic code will remain the same until the the child is born.

OMG, I've never heard any of this before; you've blown my mind and expanded my knowledge beyond all expectations and ... no sh!t, Sherlock.

To say that a zygote or fetus at a certain stage in development is not the same as the person that is born ignores the fact that after fertilization the cells are genetically dissimilar from either parent and the genetic code will not change at any point in that development.

So here's the fact you're missing: genetic code != person. If you're gonna to tell me that a single-celled zygote is a person, deserving of human rights, I'm gonna dismiss you as a kook.

If we say that the child is a unique being distinct from either parent then how can we have a cutoff point?

Complete lack of cognizance works well enough for me.

Are we next going to start killing our old people off when they cannot take care of themselves?

Why is your slippery slope shaped like a seismometer graph?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

To say that a zygote or fetus at a certain stage in development is not the same as the person that is born ignores the fact that after fertilization the cells are genetically dissimilar from either parent and the genetic code will not change at any point in that development

If we say that the child is a unique being distinct from either parent then how can we have a cutoff point? Are we next going to start killing our old people off when they cannot take care of themselves?

OH, now I understand why it's ok to kill an identical twin, it's because the surviving twin will still be alive enough for both of them. It all makes sense now

That's also why it's ok to kill someone as long as you make an immortal cell line out of one of their tumors

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If this were true, then birth control would be redundant. Obviously, some gametes "naturally" grow up to be men, even stupendous men

Not left to their own devices. You have to choose to engage in actions to mix the cells in question, which can then create a new life form and for that life form there's an existing standard (heart/brain) of protection.

If you want to petition the government to create new laws regarding protection of sperm and eggs, you can do that. Though. the natural progression for sperm and eggs are to be expelled from the body after a time absent a choice to mix them together.

In the same way that gametes require assistance to become embryos, embryos require assistance to become people.

You'll never have a sperm develop into an embryo without direct intervention. You have to make a conscience choice in order for that sperm to be able to create the thing we are debating.

However, once someone decides to put their sperm where an egg is likely to be found, an embryo is likely to be created and left to it's own devices will force itself out of it's mother in 9 months. Women have babies all the time without doing anything after fertilization, sometimes not even realizing that they had the child in them to begin with. In simpler times, the only "assistance" that might be given is for a mother to squat and push. One you have to choose - the other does the choosing for you.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Oh please. That's like saying you have a choice whether to eat or a choice whether to laugh or a choice whether to sneeze. It's a "choice" which 99.9999% of people do, so distinguishing it as a choice is semantic tomfoolery.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Oh please. That's like saying you have a choice whether to eat...

Lots of people have chosen not to procreate, or even have sex and have not died. Not so in regards to eating.

... or a choice whether to laugh or a choice whether to sneeze. It's a "choice" which 99.9999% of people do, so distinguishing it as a choice is semantic tomfoolery.

Not at all. While most DO do it, there are a lot of things most people do which have results they have to live with afterwards. Just because everyone does something doesn't mean that they should be free to be absolved of any responsibility that comes with doing that thing when you can choose not to do it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Lots of people have chosen not to procreate, or even have sex and have not died. Not so in regards to eating.

Actually, everyone dies. An active sex life however will keep you alive and healthy longer, on average

The fact is abstinence is distinctly unnatural. You can't object to abortion for being an artificial intervention while at the same time praising something as artificial as abstinence. We all know the natural course is procreation, and that includes copulation, fertilization AND gestation. Interfering with any of the three puts us squarely in the realm of the artificial. The whole "what would happen if left to its own devices" is babies, lots of babies, and in the case of scarcity (the usual case), dead babies.

Not at all. While most DO do it, there are a lot of things most people do which have results they have to live with afterwards.

"Have to," eh? Ok I'll bite. Name one other thing in life that provides consequences which we "have to" live with, even though there is a medical intervention readily available that would negate those consequences.

[Athens]

Lets move this to the other end of the scale here. What about self termination. Your old, your in constant pain. You have lived a good life and you want have a good bye party with your loved ones and be dead. Now why is this prevented. Adult person making the choice to die who is suffering and in pain, why is he prevented. I mean we kill the unborn but wont allow the old to die on their terms. What reason other then religious interference keeps us from allowing those that want to die to die. Could also make the argument for keeping brain dead people alive artificially for years and decades. At least a fetish that isn't wanted isn't left to languish for years. The treatment they get is a lot more humane then that of some victims and elderly.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Lets move this to the other end of the scale here. What about self termination. Your old, your in constant pain. You have lived a good life and you want have a good bye party with your loved ones and be dead. Now why is this prevented. Adult person making the choice to die who is suffering and in pain, why is he prevented. I mean we kill the unborn but wont allow the old to die on their terms. What reason other then religious interference keeps us from allowing those that want to die to die. Could also make the argument for keeping brain dead people alive artificially for years and decades. At least a fetish that isn't wanted isn't left to languish for years. The treatment they get is a lot more humane then that of some victims and elderly.

i agree with you...it's always religion getting in the way

i think

life begins with your first breath

life ends with your last breath

[Uncle Skeleton]

Speak for yourself... my fetishes aren't unwanted, and they certainly don't languish for years. I put my fetishes to work.

[The Final Dakar]

*giggle*

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The fact is abstinence is distinctly unnatural. You can't object to abortion for being an artificial intervention while at the same time praising something as artificial as abstinence. We all know the natural course is procreation, and that includes copulation, fertilization AND gestation. Interfering with any of the three puts us squarely in the realm of the artificial. The whole "what would happen if left to its own devices" is babies, lots of babies, and in the case of scarcity (the usual case), dead babies.

I think the whole "natural" vs "artificial" angle is DOA. Human sexuality is subjected to a great deal of mental and physical stimuli ranging anywhere from abstinence to promiscuity and a wealth of discriminations employed at every level from thinking "girls are gross" at 4 yrs of age to thinking "that big-boned girl is gross" at 17 yrs of age. Opportunities for sexual experiences come and go with no clear determinant of a sexual "rate". For this matter stealing is a natural response to need, but we still consider it wrong. After all, we humans have our own nature including our varying opinions on matters.

"Have to," eh? Ok I'll bite. Name one other thing in life that provides consequences which we "have to" live with, even though there is a medical intervention readily available that would negate those consequences.

For starters; Hepatitis B, HPV, and HIV. While medical intervention is available to mitigate symptoms up to and including death, the afflicted must remain vigilant often including periods of abstinence.

[ebuddy]

life begins with your first breath

Complete lack of cognizance works well enough for me.

So... that's two votes for LIFE @ 11 weeks gestation!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Selling eggs is illegal in Canada.

Is harvesting embryonic stem cells for sale to researchers also illegal?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What of those working in the road, killed by a vehicle? Sometimes evolution is just friggin' cruel. I happen to think our knack for overcoming the deleterious affects of evolution separates us from the pygmy chimp when it comes to medical ethics, knowledge, and advancement.

Newsflash: nature is cruel. Brutal, cold and unforgiving. Frequently. Using medicine to save people who have already had children or been sterilised has no effect one way or the other on evolution. This is also true of saving or healing someone who has a non-fatal condition or someone who was injured due to the actions of another (Dumb people can shoot smart people). One could argue that if your hypothetical road worker was smarter, (s)he wouldn't have been working in the the road in the first place. That said evolution will only select for traits that we perceive as better if we construct our societies to support those traits. If there is an advantage that helps you breed more by being violent, then people will get more violent. Check out a movie called Idiocracy to see what I mean.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've not quoted a single verse of Scripture in opposing abortion, in this thread or anywhere else. I haven't had to... and still don't. I understand the Atheist Manifesto requires that you wear your authority problem on your sleeve and proselytize your antagonist faith for the attention-grab, but you have to discern your audience. There's no shortage of people guilting others into any decision including pro-choice. You said "enforced screening". What the hell is that if not how I've interpreted it and why can't you stand behind the statement?

In short, I thank the Christian God you are not the arbiter of weak.

I did say enforced screening and I will stand by that statement. (I believe I have heard the term screening used to refer to just testing for genetic disorders in utero rather than testing and aborting but I am not against going the extra distance here). It is exceptionally cruel to a have a child with a debilitating disease if you can prevent it. That is the only reason I would enforce an abortion though I really have to admit I don't like the term enforced. I do think people would feel less guilty about aborting a genetically defective fetus if it were legally required of them to do so. It should certainly be required for families on welfare.
This is right up there with a previous point about our cultural attitude to euthanasia and I say its better to avoid suffering before it starts.
Interesting aside, there was a young rugby player who got into an accident which took him from being huge and physically powerful to being badly physically disabled. He decided to go to Switzerland and have himself put down. There was plenty of outcry about this, he was only 23. This case would obviously not have any bearing on evolution.

'He wasn't prepared for a second-class life': why injured rugby star went to Switzerland to die | UK news | The Guardian

I don't recall accusing you of quoting scripture but I think everyone here knows that we are all avoiding discussing religious influences on this subject for the sake of keeping it interesting. My comment about guilt and going to hell was not aimed at you or anyone here. Just the pro life movement as a whole.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think the whole "natural" vs "artificial" angle is DOA.

I agree

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

"Have to," eh? Ok I'll bite. Name one other thing in life that provides consequences which we "have to" live with, even though there is a medical intervention readily available that would negate those consequences.

For starters; Hepatitis B, HPV, and HIV. While medical intervention is available to mitigate symptoms up to and including death, the afflicted must remain vigilant often including periods of abstinence.

I don't see how that answers the question... are people feeling like they "have to" abstain from the available treatments for these conditions? Do the treatments even qualify (I said "negate")?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Athens has a good point in relation to the political sides which people take. That is...

If by "good point" you mean "same old tired argument that gets dragged up over and over" then yes, he does.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I certainly don't agree with his animal liberation views. His infanticide views seems unnecessary, since we can screen for devastating deformities in utero, and waiting until birth seems like a stupid idea (just like waiting times for abortion, for instance). But given the single example at the end - the child born without a brain - assuming it wasn't detected earlier for some odd reason, seems reasonable to me.

I see part 2 is linked, so I'm gonna go watch that now.
I find it interesting that the video description misrepresents what she said. She didn't say she would smother disabled babies, she said she would smother a suffering child.

I find it interesting that we, culturally, are fine with giving our pets a peaceful death when it comes time, but we allow our children (and everyone else) to die long, horrible deaths because we are afraid of the slippery slope. But you ask if I agree with this woman, and really I don't know, because I just hadn't thought about it before now. I've pretty much assumed that the certainly of long illness until death is mitigated by pain killers and such, but frankly that's ignorance on my part since I don't really know what long term pain is like.

I think culturally we're slowly approaching a tipping point regarding self-euthanization, but I don't think infanticide is on the horizon, mostly because we see and experience adult suffering all the time, but infant suffering is hidden, and heavily mitigated by abortion, which has drastically changed the ratio of healthy births. If the public was more exposed to tragic cases, our attitudes might change, but really I'm not certain what is to come here.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Since we were talking about "Gattaca" earlier in the context of genetic screening, Here is an episode of ST TNG you might find interesting. Season 4 Episode 22 "Half a Life"
Clip of the relevant dialogue:
YouTube Star Trek - Half a Life - Clip
Full episode:
videobb - Free Video Hosting - Your #1 Video Site - TNG422 Half a Life

Originally Posted by Athens 

Lets move this to the other end of the scale here. What about self termination. Your old, your in constant pain. You have lived a good life and you want have a good bye party with your loved ones and be dead. Now why is this prevented. Adult person making the choice to die who is suffering and in pain, why is he prevented. I mean we kill the unborn but wont allow the old to die on their terms. What reason other then religious interference keeps us from allowing those that want to die to die. Could also make the argument for keeping brain dead people alive artificially for years and decades. At least a fetish that isn't wanted isn't left to languish for years. The treatment they get is a lot more humane then that of some victims and elderly.

The episode TNG "Half a Life" deals with this subject. Someone like Michael J Fox would be expected to save his family the expense and anguish that comes with succumbing to Parkinson's

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Is harvesting embryonic stem cells for sale to researchers also illegal?

Yes.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... that's two votes for LIFE @ 11 weeks gestation!

11 week fetuses are not cognizant.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Blood cells are also "alive" but no sane person would consider them to be the same as a fetus.

Actually there are people in this thread who do think these two are equally disposable (up to a point) which is the relevant characteristic in this discussion.

[Railroader]

So, has any one actually convinced any one of anything in this thread?

[Laminar]

I'm convinced that selling my plasma is immoral.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

So, has any one actually convinced any one of anything in this thread?

I don't think that is even possible because this is a ideological subject. I can't see any one minds being changed.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i agree with you...it's always religion getting in the way

i think

life begins with your first breath

life ends with your last breath

You know its a good point. Until birth and the cord is cut a baby is still a part or a piece of a mother.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The episode TNG "Half a Life" deals with this subject. Someone like Michael J Fox would be expected to save his family the expense and anguish that comes with succumbing to Parkinson's

Thats a danger of allowing self termination, the pressure from insurance companies, doctors and family because its cheaper to self terminate. I think the option should be open to the person if they are in great pain and want to have a scheduled termination. But I can imagine it being abused by pressure factors.

Voyager did a good episode when the Klingon girl was going to have Toms kid she wanted to Alter it to look normal. I think ST has covered most social issues during the years.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The fact is abstinence is distinctly unnatural.

Some say monogamy is unnatural. Some say man's efforts at "survival of the fittest" makes a whole host of moral behaviors, in light of their not serving a broader goal of self-interest, unnatural.

No one says that you have to CHOOSE not to do what comes naturally to you, or that which makes you feel good. You just have no right to be free from the responsibilities that come with that choice. It might NOT be "natural" to stay with one mate, and you can choose to spread your seed around to multiple partners despite expressing a desire to remain monogamous as well. However, when you lose half of your stuff after failing to achieve that "unnatural" goal, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Name one other thing in life that provides consequences which we "have to" live with, even though there is a medical intervention readily available that would negate those consequences.

Someone who is annoying. There are medical procedures that can be done on that person in order to negate the effect of their annoyance to me, including sucking the brains out of their heads.