tzor wrote:
There is a tendency to hide these kinds of euthanasia questions under the abortion issue, but assuming we are not talking about the life of the mother and assuming that the fetus is clearly non viable, what we are really talking about is pre-birth euthanasia.
I agree. And, I think it must be dealt with on the same terms.
In years past, there WAS no question. A person died or they lived ... as God willed. Now, though we have gone so far with so many medical interventions that it has become a real question, for a Christian moralist, whether we truly are practicing God's will by ALWAYS preserving every single life? It is a moral and ethical question that I feel we MUST ask. I don't, myself, have a set answer. I DON'T even know if we have crossed the real boundary even yet. But, even if we have not already ... I do believe we will get there at some point.
tzor wrote: Remember that in that same continent where times are indeed rough, it's not only the pre-born children who die, even the post born children who are severerly handicapped are quietly killed. Necessity, like nature, can be cruel.
These are also the places where gender based infanticide is also practiced.
In that sense Nappy has a point. There are many places in the world where people suffer and where necessity is cruel. Whose fault is that? Petty dictators like those in Burma (I refuse to call that nation the name those bastards changed it to) are letting their own people starve to death, arresting those who try to help, and killing anyone who complains or talks about it. Rich middle class Americans are diverting food supplies to their gas guzzling mini vans. Liberal elite Gore worshipers are preventing doctors in Africa from using decent electrial generators and forcing them to practice medicine with only the power of small solar panels. And government inept breuracy still keeps amny "developiong" nations from being safe to live in.
Whose common demoninator should we go to, the least or the highest? Shall we adopt the attitude of E. Schrodge and simply "reduce the surpluss population?" Yes these are certainly major moral issues that we as a society need to address. But in moving this issue to a simple aboriton issue we hide the issue under the cover of "privacy."
No, I agree with you fully that all of this is wrong. Nor was I implying that abortion is in any way the answer to any of that. I just don't think we can apply standards appropriate here in the US and expect them to apply identically in other countries. In particular the Bush administration has expressly forbidden any US funds for passing out condoms, for birth control education, and so forth. That, I find, rather hypocritical...and I feel that putting that forward as a the "Christian" standard is to ignore the very real results
right now.
When it comes to food and resources ... I believe that
right now, we have more of a distribution issue than a true resource shortage.
HOWEVER:, in medicine, this is very, very far from the case. There ARE only a few of the neonatal units in the country that can support a child born prior to 6 months. If a neurosurgeon is operating one one child, he cannot operate on another. Money spent on one cannot be spent on another... or
several others. I am not saying those hospitals should stop trying to save kids ... not at all.
I AM saying that:
A. the decisions a parent and doctor make in New York or Los Angeles, where the latest in technology and training for doctors is available, is just not the same as a decision that makes sense in "tiny town" USA.
B. We DO have to at least ASK if spending 3,000,000 ... or 10,000,000 or 10 TRILLION on one child is really the MORAL thing to do. At some point, we have to ask if, maybe, we would be better spending that million on world vaccinations, or even better schools here in the US.
Here is the thing. Make no mistake, those decisions ARE BEING MADE, right now. They are being made by insurance companies, by governments, by all kinds of people. Decisions are being made and implemented... Unfortunately, the WEAKEST voice in all this is the moral voice (moral meaning all churches, folks of all beliefs), EXCEPT for the most extreme views. (on both sides)
WE (the majority) cannot let this be painted as an "all or nothing" debate. BOTH extremes are just unacceptable in the real world.
WE have to talk about these issues, and when we do, we have to look at ALL the facets, including the "nasty" and "uncomfortable" issues like just how much of an injury makes the differance between a real life and not a life? DO we go by the "if it can live and breath... with any amount of assistance the child deserves to live" OR do we introduce some other standard? ...
ANY other standard?
I believe that as a society, we are a very, very long way from really grappling with these issues. But, these issues will not go away. Further, it will just get harder. Already we hear whispers of things I believe terrify a good many people... genetic manipulation of human embryos, stem cell research.
EACH step, each medical advance, changes what it is to be human, what steps we are able ... and perhaps willing to take, to preserve human life. In Biblical days, a child was not a real child until born. In some traditions, actually, it was not "fully" a part of the community for some days after birth. Now, because of medical advances, we can tell if a child lives very early. The legality comes in steps. We begin to consider a child a child at 3 months ... before that, it is "just a blob of cells". Therefore, abortion is legal prior to that. Is that medically valid or is that an arbitrary measure? In reality, it is part of both. In some states, a child of 5 months born "still" is given a death certificate and buried. In other states, it is treated, essentially, as medical waste until later. By the time a child is 7 months, mosts would consider it a "child". BUT, legally, it is not 100% as human, as it will be when outside the womb. A mother can refuse a procedure, such as a C-section, even if the doctor feels it the best chance for a child to survive.
Should the standards, now shift? Should, perhaps, reference in late term procedures refer to sonograms that confirm the state of the child? When we debate, we have to remember as we debate that the guidelines will be for everyone. We must allow for some difference in religious belief, but still set boundaries.
One change I absolutely want is that any procedure used to remove a dead child should NOT be considered an abortion. Legally, this is currently not the case. What matters is the procedure used to remove the child, not whether the child was living before or not.
Other than that, I have a hard time drawing lines for other people. I believe I know what I might do in various situations. (believe ... as many will attest you cannot really know until it happens to you)
For now, the law, as it exists, should stand. I don't
like the idea that a woman can just go and have an abortion up until 3 months for any reason at all. BUT, I accept it as a legal compromise in a society with people of varying religious and moral beliefs. I might like some changes to the standards for allowing later term abortions, but know that most of these decisions are made with EXTREME reluctance by the parents, for reasons they believe both medically and morally justified. I do not feel I am in a position to judge them. BECAUSE I cannot judge them, because I cannot tell them what is the right thing for them to do ... I believe the law should allow THEM to make the decision.
