quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Same answer as always. OTHER PEOPLE'S PRIVATE MEDICAL ISSUES AREN'T ANYONE ELSE'S CONCERN.

And it's mighty impolite to go sticking your nose into other people's private business.

If that is the case, do you approve of withholding medical treatment from a child in favor of prayer if that is the wish of the parents?

Maybe you didn't understand me the first time.

OTHER PEOPLE'S PRIVATE MEDICAL ISSUES AREN'T ANYONE ELSE'S CONCERN.

And it's mighty impolite to go sticking your nose into other people's private business.

The mistreatment of a vulnerable child by its parents is the business of the State. Abuse of the helpless by the powerful is not excused because of blood relationship or marriage. The prevention of such abuse is the purpose of the state.

In the context of this discussion, the medical practice of abortion ( and how rude people seem to think their opinion matters ) isn't it rather silly to be invoking the states' interest in a live-born child? ( as if that would be applicable? )

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

It always got tricky, fast. At first, students would list the attributes of humans as opposed to other animals (consciousness, self-awareness, ability to feel compassion, intelligence) . . . and then contrast the lack of these in non-human species with the holding of them by humans.

But, clearly, right out there on the margins - as in cases just like this - there are humans who don't hold these 'ordinary human attributes'. They don't even hold the attributes we have in common with other primates, or even other mammals. Yet still they're humans and, ipso facto, their lives are valuable in a way that those of other species just aren't and can never be.

Thoughtful, Peon. Thank you.

But, other sentient creatures share the same attributes with us. So, were your students not expressing a human-centric prejudice derived from oh say, the early lines of Genesis? Do humans really have a higher intrinsic value? Or is that a delusion? A tale we tell ourselves?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

She does but since there is no hope and the humane thing would have been to let it die then the rest of society should not be burdened with the care of something that has no chance of ever being anything.

He's something wonderful to his mother. But more to the point, your argument lays the foundation for a program of eugenics. Once it's accepted, there remains only the matter of deciding who should be "humanely" disposed of.

Who wrote anything about disposed of? I certainly didn't. I wrote let. Maybe you need to brush up on basic English.

Maybe you should think before you open your mouth. How precisely do you propose to "let" him die? He sure wasn't doing it on his own. So what would "letting" him die entail? Withholding his medications? Not feeding him? How would you propose we go about disposing of him by "letting" him die?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen



You let something die by not intervening. There is no disposal. This thing could only have survived by intense medical intervention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You let something die by not intervening. There is no disposal. This thing could only have survived by intense medical intervention.

"This thing could only have survived by intense medical intervention?" You're just making that shit up.

In almost all cases, anencephalic infants are not aggressively resuscitated because there is no chance of the infant ever achieving a conscious existence. Instead, the usual clinical practice is to offer hydration, nutrition, and comfort measures and to "let nature take its course". Artificial ventilation, surgery (to fix any co-existing congenital defects), and drug therapy (such as antibiotics) are usually regarded as futile efforts. Some clinicians and medical ethicists view even the provision of nutrition and hydration as medically futile. ~Source

Most of these babies die within hours, but Nicholas survived a few days, then a few months ... He somehow survived without doctors, or tubes. Sheena says he even shows signs of emotion. "He's smiling. He's laughed for the first time. It was wonderful to hear him laugh..." ~OP Story Link

So if you're done playing doctor now, I'll ask again. How do you propose we go about "letting" him die?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

He somehow survived without doctors, or tubes. ~OP Story Link

To start with by not putting in the drain that kept the build up of CSF from destroying the brain stem like it had the rest of the brain. And I agree with the clinicians who say putting a tube down its throat to hydrate and feed it was medically futile and should not have been done.

Hello? Earth? Come in?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

why dont you let him Answer the first question before you get in his face about what you assert a fucking ugly position
that says SO much!!!!

The first question was in reply to domken. Why the fuck would I wait for or even expect someone else to answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

She does but since there is no hope and the humane thing would have been to let it die then the rest of society should not be burdened with the care of something that has no chance of ever being anything.

He's something wonderful to his mother. But more to the point, your argument lays the foundation for a program of eugenics. Once it's accepted, there remains only the matter of deciding who should be "humanely" disposed of.

K.

I guess pro choice should now be redefined to mean you have the choice as long as it won't cost me anything,

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I always knew that someday, pro-infanticidists would, eventually move past birth. Give 'em an inch, they'll implement eugenics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I always knew that someday, pro-infanticidists would, eventually move past birth. Give 'em an inch, they'll implement eugenics.

DS, I believe that a woman should have the right to choose what goes on in her body, without interference.

Am I a pro-infanticidist?

quote:

It's a question of where we draw the lines, and how we weigh the values that come into conflict. In the case of parent whose religious beliefs deny them the option of modern medicine, I start with a default to the position of religious liberty, and then look to the individual case. Will the child certainly die without treatment, and certainly live with it? Then permanently remove the child from their custody.

quote:

Will the child die at home, surrounded by love and care without treatment vs. only maybe die after months of mediturture in a heartless maze of needles, tubes, and strangers who come and go? I believe that choice remains with the parents.

quote:

Now back to you, Vince. Do you believe the government should be empowered to force a family in this situation to abort the child?

quote:

First off, Vincent, I have seen you pussy out of WAY too many discussions, to watch you climb up on a high horse here and whine about people not answering you. That's a bitch move, and you may consider yourself called on it. This happens most frequently when you assume you are the only one who can appreciate and indulge in nuance and degree, while anyone you choose to challenge will be held to an absolute stance. My beer loving brother in law is far more entertaining, and can be counted to pick up the dinner check.