Abortion

[tzor]

Now can we get back to the issue and stop dancing with the condiment?

Shut it fatty.

Never, you gay poupon.

[Dancing Mustard]

Right. I'm going to report you for flaming outside of FW.

[tzor]

What? Me flaming? Me innocent litle old me? Just because I called you a ...
Oh wait ... I made a typo ... yea that's it. I forgot the "r"
Perhaps I should have used Coleman's Dry Mustard instead ... or is that another flame?

[Juan_Bottom]

What? Me flaming? Me innocent litle old me? Just because I called you a ...
Oh wait ... I made a typo ... yea that's it. I forgot the "r"
Perhaps I should have used Coleman's Dry Mustard instead ... or is that another flame?

Sorry DM, but that was witty.

[PLAYER57832]

I think we are getting somewhere but we are also shifting topics/definitions again. In one sense we have gone from euthanasia to triage. Sometimes it is impossible to cure everyone, and some people die because there was not enough care available. This isn't really euthanasia, this is just the sad reality of limited resources. Shifting the topic slightly so remove the blinders of social stigmas there are still a lot of people who die each year because they need organ transplants and none were available. The answer to that is not to throw up our hands but to figure out how to improve the resouces so that those sorts of decisions no longer need to be made.

I (obviously) have not been in the thread for a few days, but I did want to address one point you raised earlier. This was not the exact quote I wanted, but it is close.

Specifically,

You are correct that euthanasia and later term abortions are akin. BUT, they are not the same.

First, most euthanasia really should not be involuntary. EVERYONE past the age of consent (and I will add that in Pennsyvania, the age of medical consent in 14 .. for ALL medical procedures, not just pregancy stuff) should have an advanced directive of some sort. It can be as brief or as detailed as you like, but should specify in writing what you would and would not want done "in case". Specifically when they should start life support, when they should not, whether you want organs donated ... etc. Even so, there are times when it won't apply... BUT, the thing is while I know full well there are people out there who are like ghouls waiting for their parents to die. AND, there are many ,many who abuse their elders, who put them in decrepit homes, not because they have no choice, but because they really don't care ...etc.

BUT, the answer to all that is not to ask the government to make new laws. The answer is to take an interest in your neighbors, the people around you. Can you fix "everything?" no, but it does go a very long way.

Anyhow, that sort of euthanasia is different from abortion for one primary reason -- birth trauma.

Bith itself, even today, even with all our medical knowledge and advances is a hazardous journey. Even the healthiest of babies can end up dead or seriously injured. The mother can die (usually from excessive bleeding, but also hormonal issues, allergic reactions, etc.) or can lose her ability to have future children. In my case, I am Rh negative. My husband is Rh+. If I am exposed to the blood of a child with positive blood, then I, essentially become allergic to any future children. The fix is easy... a shot, but it does require some notice and preparation to work best. (roughly 15% of ALL women have this, by-the-way).

Anyhow, that DOES make a huge difference. It adds a final dimension to an already murky issue. That, and the the fact that while it may not be in your eyes, in many folks views the issue of a child "no born" is not the same as the issue of actually "taking" a living child. Ethically, they have never been viewed the same by any society. In fact, in many societies, a child is not considered truly "living" in the whole sense, truly a part of society, until a month has passed or a child undergoes some sort of ceremony. You don't have to agree... I am just saying that difference is real and has always been. To deny that difference is just to deny history.

That said, the whole "slippery slope" issue is really where the problem lies, NOT the slope itself. You see, I truly believe that human beings are quite capable of making fine distinctions, if they have all the information they need. Of course, sometimes information is lacking, but we do the best we can.

YOU refer to euthanasia and abortion as "slippert slopes". To my mind, the slippery slope is the entire field of medicine. Do I regret that we have advances in surgary and medicines, etc? No, but I also say that once we have begun to intervene in life, once we have begun to say that we have the right to subvert God's will (and I believe we do ... or at least that there is no turning back the clock), then we must tackle ALL of the issues.

I will use the Roman Catholic Church as an example, because it is so prominent in this debate and their position well known. The Pope has said that "God always chooses life". Except, I don't believe that to be true. God does NOT always choose life. It is God who decides that some people should die, some should live. God allowed pain and suffering. As a Christian, I have to believe that he had a purpose, a cause. However, there is more to that than simply saying that any medical devise we can create ie OK and good ... as long as it preserves life.

When we talk of aborting end-stage fetuses, it is saying that this child who, in even just a few years past would have had absolutely not chance at life really should not be born. You may not like that decision. I don't believe most parents who make that decision like it, but it is, in some cases, the least worst of a lot of very terrible choices.

This is what I meant when I said that I believe churches, folks of all moral beliefs need to actually wrestle with these decisions, come to some better moral ideas. Because the time is long past when an "all or nothing" approach can apply with any sanity.

If you would eschew these choices ... so be it. To my mind, if you refuse to tackle the issue of euthanasia and other very serious and morally turbid issues, then you have no right to use the benefits of medicine. That is my personal opininion. No one has to agree. But, once we undertake to use to positives, then we must also face the negatives. If we will preserve life, then we must also ask ourselves when to stop ... when, in fact, in todays world it is NOT OK and Not always good to preserve life. When, because of such advanced medicine this actually even means technically taking a life ... albiet taking a life in what many (you don't have to agree) feel (despite the horror stories I know you have heard ) it is a better and easier and more sane choice.

Someone else said that this debate was over some time ago. I basically agree. I doubt I will check in again. Maybe. We will see. But, I did want to address your final and valid point.

One thing you said is absolutely true. These issues are hard, but when we take the time to actually listen to each other and not just spout off margins, then we can reach, if not a total concensus, at least a far better understanding. That is all anyone can expect. That can only be to the good. Regardless of how you feel or I feel. Taht we can each respect one another's opinion and talk is all to the good.

[tzor]

It's nice to get back to the issues at hand.

I'll briefly talk about adult euthanasia. Will to live documents are not the standard in the United States although the opposite "living wills" are standard. The nature of euthanasia becomes complex when given the problems of organ donation. The fact is that a growing number of cases are suggesting that classical brain death may not be good enough anymore and that peope who might have a good chance to recover may be getting killed for their organs. There is also a significant movement for "non-voluntary" euthanasia, killing people who may have serious life threatening illnesses and not telling them because the knowledge may be upsetting to them.

Yes the answer to this is to make new laws. Just like the answer to bad conditions in the workplace is to make new laws. You can always make bad laws but the answer is to make the correct law for the situation.

The notion that the unborn child is somehow different from the born child historically carries little weight; the story of humankind is filled with dehumanizing the other, one who is not of your tribe, or not of your race, or even not of your gender. As we evolve we have acknowledged more of the humanity around us.

The slippery slope is reversing that trend. It is not abortion that is the slippery slope, it is dehumanizing the viable fetus. It is not euthanasia that is the slippery slope, it is the attitude that a person't organs or worse a person's bed space is more viable than the person.

The Catholic Chruch's position (on euthanasia) is that extraordinary means (life support) is not required to sustain life but that ordinary means (food and water) are basic human "rights" that should not be denied to a person because of their medical condition.

In the end I think we agree, the need to respect each others opinions is vital. Always talk about what you believe, never about what you think some else believes, and respect when someone else honestly talks about what they bleieve. In the end the movement towards the happy medium is made by a million tiny steps on both sides of the argument, one step at a time.

[Mr_Adams]

Lets please not have another fucking abortion thread.

what is this? #8?

[Mr_Adams]

Just for the record, I'm anti-abortion, except in special cases where the child puts the mother at high risk. E.G. Ovular pregnancy, where the child starts to develop in one of the tubes leading into the womb. This can be crippling, or even fatal to the mother.

[Dancing Mustard]

Oh gosh, this thread has arisen from its grave to consume the brains of the living.

Looks like you really can't keep a good troll-war down.