Fetus, Death, Life

Contradictions all around

Published on June 16, 2005 By Dr Guy In Current Events

I leave this to your own imagination. Since some of the more vulagar are confined to their own playpen, I hope that we can get some insight here.

Specifically, this is part 2 of Dharma's recent article. 21 weeks and counting. Should we keep the women who is clearly brain dead alive for a mass of protoplasm?

Or should we just pull the plug and let all the tissue die.

Interesting choice. What do you say?

Comments (Page 1)

Manopeace

on Jun 16, 2005

Or should we just pull the plug and let all the tissue die.

never plug it in in the first place....

stutefish

on Jun 16, 2005

I say it's a totally banal and boring choice.

The man wants to see his child born, and he's willing to assert that this is in keeping with his wife's desires. No other close family members are opposing him, and the doctors say it can be done. Assuming he's able to afford the costs, why not?

What do you say, Dr. Guy? An arbitrary mass of protoplasm, or a human life worth saving?

Clearly, the husband and the doctors think it's a human life worth saving. What is your justification for calling it a mass of protoplasm? Is it to make the pro-life answer to your question seem less reasonable, or do you sincerely believe that humanity is a subjective condidtion?

Anyway, if it is a subjective condition, contingent only on the choice of the parents, how is your question at all interesting? The one parent capable of deciding on the humanity of the fetus has already so decided, with the support of his medical advisors.

It's not like there's anything controversial going on here, even by the standards of the pro-abortionists and the Schiavo-killers.

Dr Guy

on Jun 16, 2005

never plug it in in the first place....

Then the next MLK, or Gandi may not be born. Maybe Winston Churchill should not have been born given his mother?

You want Neville Chamberlain to determine your fate, for surely he would have if not for WC.

Dr Guy

on Jun 16, 2005

Clearly, the husband and the doctors think it's a human life worth saving. What is your justification for calling it a mass of protoplasm? Is it to make the pro-life answer to your question seem less reasonable, or do you sincerely believe that humanity is a subjective condidtion?

Anyway, if it is a subjective condition, contingent only on the choice of the parents, how is your question at all interesting? The one parent capable of deciding on the humanity of the fetus has already so decided, with the support of his medical advisors.

Thanks for the ripost!

And yes there is. For if a 'fetus' is not human, then the decision to keep her alive is clearly immoral! But if the baby is a real human being, then the decision is clearly to preserve life!

It is not subjective as this is an objective decision and it strikes at the heart of both PBA and abortion in general.

This man, in his own small way, is saying no to death, and yes to life. I pray that this baby survives so that he can have a rememberance of his wife. And her desire to bring forth her legacy. But I know others will just poo poo it as so much wasted energy for a useless life.

That is my point! You made if for me. on the Right side.

What is the difference between this baby, and the so called stem cells from fetuses? Not a damn thing except for gestation. Both are human.

Manopeace

on Jun 16, 2005

Then the next MLK, or Gandi may not be born.

u win

stutefish

on Jun 16, 2005

"Then the next MLK, or Gandi may not be born. Maybe Winston Churchill should not have been born given his mother?"

On the other hand, maybe we'd be saving the world from the next Hitler, Manson, or Jones.

Make no mistake, Guy the pro-life position is not founded on some rose-coloered hypothetical lifeboat ethics BS. The pro-life position isn't based on what the fetus might become later. It's based on what the fetus is right now: a human life.

Dr Guy

on Jun 16, 2005

u win

No my friend, we win.

Dr Guy

on Jun 16, 2005

On the other hand, maybe we'd be saving the world from the next Hitler, Manson, or Jones.

Make no mistake, Guy the pro-life position is not founded on some rose-coloered hypothetical lifeboat ethics BS. The pro-life position isn't based on what the fetus might become later. It's based on what the fetus is right now: a human life.

You preach to the choir!

Who are we to decide? Another Beethoven? Or another hitler?

If we decide, we play god. And we are ill equipped to do so.

stutefish

on Jun 16, 2005

Sorry, Guy. I guess I got confused.

Where do you stand, on this issue, and the issue of fetal stem cell research?

Most of the conservatives I know also oppose fetal stem cell research, for the same reasons. Your article's subtitle says "Contradictions all around", but all I can find in this article and its implications is a remarkable consistency.

Point of logic: even if the fetus is not human, it doesn't follow that keeping the mother's body alive is necessarily immoral.

HC1240

on Jun 16, 2005

The pro-life position isn't based on what the fetus might become later. It's based on what the fetus is right now: a human life.

I concur.

Dr Guy

on Jun 16, 2005

Point of logic: even if the fetus is not human, it doesn't follow that keeping the mother's body alive is necessarily immoral.

Guess you need to read more of my stuff. And the above is illogical. for if the fetus is just a mass of cells, then keeping the body alive is immoral. It serves no purpose.

BUT! if that mass of cells may live, then is it not a human now? just the division of being inside (vs outside) the human the differentiation? And if that is the case, then shove a kid back up the uterus and kill it is legal.

The slippery slope.

Dr Guy

on Jun 16, 2005

concur.

IN isolation that is a great statement! I should have, no will give him an insightful for that one!

stutefish

on Jun 16, 2005

Sorry, Guy. I'm still having trouble following your train of thought.

If the fetus is a mass of cells that may one day become a human being, then keeping the mother's body alive serves a very clear and obvious purpose: allowing the mass of cells to become a human being. This is the declared purpose of the husband/father, and the purpose to which the medical staff has dedicated itself. There's plenty of purpose here; in fact, the entire story is about purpose.

If you were convinced that there was no hope of survival for the fetus, then sure, I'd agree that it was in some sense immoral to waste resources keeping the mother alive. But since even you seem to agree that the fetus could become a human being some day (if it isn't already), it seems to me that your Purpose Requirement has been fully met. Anyway, from a logical standpoint, I'm still correct: the non-humanity of the fetus doesn't necessarily mean it's immoral to keep the mother alive. By your own logic, only a lack of purpose would lead to imorality in this scenario.

My question for you is this: Where do you stand on this? Do you believe the fetus is currently human, or not? You claim to be a doctor: Given what you know about the case, what would you recommend to a husband and father in this situation?

Dr Guy

on Jun 16, 2005

Reply By: stutefish

Stute. Think sarcasm.

No, I am not a medical doctor.

stutefish

on Jun 16, 2005

To which of your statements should I apply the sarcasm, Guy?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!