|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/17/2009 9:34:30 AM
|
|
|
Retro80s
Posts: 278
Joined: 3/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: solo_soprano23
And CCC, I did answer about erring on the side of caution... probably a few pages back now.
Did you answer it in this thread or the other thread with that as its title. I was going to try to look for your answer and wanted to know where to look.
_____________________________
http://www.abort73.com
See for Yourself
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/17/2009 1:22:20 PM
|
|
|
318
Posts: 346
Joined: 1/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
First, I'd like to say I'm sorry for the hardship this situation has doubtless caused you. I really have no point of reference for how hard it must have been.
Thank you.
quote:
In my mind, staying silent would be as malicious as sneaking up behind him and pushing him off yourself.
It would be depraved indifference. By speaking up you can almost assuredly save his life.
But in my son's case, doing something could have killed him just as surely as doing nothing. In fact, it did, but it so happens that they were able to bring him back.
quote:
Now, I don't disagree with Batman on very much, but in my opinion, he killed that villain just as much as if he planted a bat-a-rang in his forehead.
Sure. I never saw the movie, but from your description it sounds very much like there was malice aforethought on Batman's part.
There was no malice aforethought with my son. Deciding whether or not to let him die was a choice that I did not want to have to make, but I did have to make it.
I also had to decide which procedure the surgeons would perform because they were divided as to what the correct course should be. It was the choice of one of two options, and they left it up to his mother and me.
quote:
I hope that illustrates my opinion on this matter sufficiently.
Well, I think that I may have undone your illustrations.
What do you think?
_____________________________
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/17/2009 2:14:20 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 2402
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
It would be depraved indifference. By speaking up you can almost assuredly save his life.
But in my son's case, doing something could have killed him just as surely as doing nothing.
I think the key words here are could have. To re-use my illustration, the blind man could have ignored the warning and kept walking. But the one who warned did their part in attempting to save a life. An attempt to save a life doesn't need a guarantee of success to be noble.
And, I would call it more than depraved indifference. If there are clearly executable steps to preserving life that are not taken, for whatever reason, then the one who withheld action is, in my mind, just as guilty as someone who intentionally takes steps to end a life.
quote:
Sure. I never saw the movie, but from your description it sounds very much like there was malice aforethought on Batman's part.
There was no malice aforethought with my son.
Which is different, given that you chose to act to attempt to save a life. Ol' Bats didn't.
quote:
Well, I think that I may have undone your illustrations.
What do you think?
Not especially, but I doubt if either of us are much surprised by that.
_____________________________
"To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea."
-G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/17/2009 6:39:29 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
So a biologically-inactive brain is a criterion for death? Then wouldn't any human body without a functioning brain be dead, at least, until they have a functioning brain or suddenly come out of some state of PVS (or the like)? I see the point you're trying to make (I'm going another direction), but even most Christians I see agree that no functioning brain means no person's there, although you seem to think otherwise. What I see here is "well, if you give it more time, they have potential (for a zygote)." Does potentiality mean personhood? It very well may, to some. I'm just asking. With the brain thing, I don't hear that reasoning from Christians most of the time. It's usually that they're taking them off the machines because they think the person is gone to wherever they would end up because they basically have no brain now; and at a certain point, they realize they can't bring them back or keep the person here via keeping the body going. Admitting one thinks a soul can be absent from a functioning body means admitting that a body can funtion biologically without a soul in some form or fashion, whatever that point in life is. I don't run into Christians who say they let someone go/pulled the plug but still thought the person was alive/there and did it anyway. It's the biology=life=person=soul argument for 100% of the time that I'm not buying, especially from Christians who believe that a soul can be absent from an alive body at the end of life. If it can happen at the end, then it's possible.
And CCC, I did answer about erring on the side of caution... probably a few pages back now.
Actually, you either missed or avoided my point. There is a difference (whatever the state of the brain) between a person who can not be helped and must be let go, and a person who is wholly viable and will be actively destroyed. This point is not dependent on the state of the brain per se, but rather on the intent of those who dealing with the person in question.
You persist in trying to define personhood biologically, and fail, because personhood is not a product of biology.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/17/2009 10:53:31 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano23
Posts: 2044
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
So a biologically-inactive brain is a criterion for death? Then wouldn't any human body without a functioning brain be dead, at least, until they have a functioning brain or suddenly come out of some state of PVS (or the like)? I see the point you're trying to make (I'm going another direction), but even most Christians I see agree that no functioning brain means no person's there, although you seem to think otherwise. What I see here is "well, if you give it more time, they have potential (for a zygote)." Does potentiality mean personhood? It very well may, to some. I'm just asking. With the brain thing, I don't hear that reasoning from Christians most of the time. It's usually that they're taking them off the machines because they think the person is gone to wherever they would end up because they basically have no brain now; and at a certain point, they realize they can't bring them back or keep the person here via keeping the body going. Admitting one thinks a soul can be absent from a functioning body means admitting that a body can funtion biologically without a soul in some form or fashion, whatever that point in life is. I don't run into Christians who say they let someone go/pulled the plug but still thought the person was alive/there and did it anyway. It's the biology=life=person=soul argument for 100% of the time that I'm not buying, especially from Christians who believe that a soul can be absent from an alive body at the end of life. If it can happen at the end, then it's possible.
And CCC, I did answer about erring on the side of caution... probably a few pages back now.
Actually, you either missed or avoided my point. There is a difference (whatever the state of the brain) between a person who can not be helped and must be let go, and a person who is wholly viable and will be actively destroyed. This point is not dependent on the state of the brain per se, but rather on the intent of those who dealing with the person in question.
You persist in trying to define personhood biologically, and fail, because personhood is not a product of biology.
There's no way I'm trying to define personhood biologically-- never have, and that's my whole point; I'm going AGAINST that. You CAN'T define it biologically; science doesn't show us anything about personhood. Science never says that someone has a soul at conception; science never says someone has a soul at the onset of brain function; it never says one has a soul at the appearance of blood or when someone breathes.
This looks strikingly similar to the the "letting die" vs. murder debate, and I'm not about to get into that one. People don't agree about that either, and not everyone believes the same things about the beginning and end of life. I think technology sometimes gets us into trouble, and some end-of-life measures are that way. There are members here who have expressed (not in this thread) that as long as there is biological life of the body, there is a person... no matter how that biological life is being maintained. And, they think that even "letting die" by actively pulling the plug is murder. Like I said, I saw your point, but I was trying to make another point related so something you said (I said that, too).
Either one is a person or they are not; potentiality isn't something that every Christian believes in.
CCC, whatever thread you asked in is the one I answered in. I thought it was this one, but I can't remember. :) It seems like this thread and the abortion thread are very similar (which isn't surprising; they are intertwined).
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/19/2009 1:38:07 PM
|
|
|
318
Posts: 346
Joined: 1/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
I think the key words here are could have. To re-use my illustration, the blind man could have ignored the warning and kept walking. But the one who warned did their part in attempting to save a life. An attempt to save a life doesn't need a guarantee of success to be noble.
Again, the issue is one of malice aforethought, or else depraved indifference. In my case, I demonstrated neither malice nor depraved indifference when I pondered letting him die. It simply boiled down to, "Do I want him to possibly have to endure multiple surgeries and countless doctors' appointments only to possibly face death at age 10 instead of right now while he is unconscious?"
quote:
If there are clearly executable steps to preserving life that are not taken, for whatever reason, then the one who withheld action is, in my mind, just as guilty as someone who intentionally takes steps to end a life.
But, again, ask yourself this as an ethical question: is it moral to save an unconscious infant's life in order to let him/her have to face conscious death a few years later, or is it more moral and merciful to let them succumb to their natural condition?
quote:
Which is different, given that you chose to act to attempt to save a life. Ol' Bats didn't.
Exactly. Batman withheld action out of malice in order to end his enemy's life. Had I let my son die, it would have been to avoid his potential future suffering and frightening death; this is not malice, but it is mercy.
I couldn't do it, though. I had to try because of the nagging question, "What if?"
What if we fight to keep him alive, and he beats the odds and lives a fairly happy, lengthy life? What if he lives to see a day when they can actually repair his condition?
There was only one way to find out for sure, and that was the way I chose.
_____________________________
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/20/2009 1:40:11 AM
|
|
|
Retro80s
Posts: 278
Joined: 3/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: solo_soprano23
CCC, whatever thread you asked in is the one I answered in. I thought it was this one, but I can't remember. :) It seems like this thread and the abortion thread are very similar (which isn't surprising; they are intertwined).
The question was mainly asked in the thread where it was in the title. I went through that thread and did not see where you answered it (although I could have overlooked it). I also tried clicking on your name to see your latest posts to try to find it that way but still did not. Will you please answer the question again?
_____________________________
http://www.abort73.com
See for Yourself
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 6/30/2009 6:16:38 PM
|
|
|
JMiller
Posts: 112
Joined: 6/9/2005
From: Tampa Bay Fla USA
Status: offline
|
25 Million little baby dolls will not be loved
25 Million pair of cowboy boots will not be worn
50 million Teddy bears will not be loved by
little boys and little girls.
This is who we are.
DEAR GOD.
http://www.50millionlost.com/
_____________________________
O Lord GOD, remember me
Callin it the way I see it
Are you drinking from the river Denial?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
