Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Lebell · 10-01-2003, 10:59 AM

Let us be clear.

What we agree on is that the fetus is bioligically alive and is human by definition of its DNA. What we don't agree on is that the fetus is a person that deserves the same legal protections as a person.

And the "rights" being taken away is the most fundamental right of all, that of moral and ethical self determination. This right I would argue is THE most fundamental God given right of all and to deny it is a sin.

You would take away this right by forcing women to use your morays and ethics in determining if an abortion (something deeply personal) is ethically and morally right or wrong.

The problem with this is that there are well thought out and valid arguments (some of which I have presented) which do not agree with your morays, therefore your argument for taking away this right must devolve to "better safe than sorry".

This is unacceptable to me and will always be.

You bring up the case of a person in a persistant coma. That is a different discussion, but I think we can agree that the person likely met all qualifications for personhood before falling into their coma. Next I have the following questions: How likely is the person likely to come out of their coma? How many people come out of persistent comas vs how many do not? Has the person signed any medical directives, medical powers of attorney, etc.

But to your original point, the individual certainly DID qualify as a person and may do so again. Further, they may or may not have provided instructions and wishes for such an eventuality. But if they have not and they will not recover, then the ethics of medical euthanasia is a valid question that I don't feel our society has sufficiently addressed.

10-01-2003, 10:59 AM	#191 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Let us be clear. What we agree on is that the fetus is bioligically alive and is human by definition of its DNA. What we don't agree on is that the fetus is a person that deserves the same legal protections as a person. And the "rights" being taken away is the most fundamental right of all, that of moral and ethical self determination. This right I would argue is THE most fundamental God given right of all and to deny it is a sin. You would take away this right by forcing women to use your morays and ethics in determining if an abortion (something deeply personal) is ethically and morally right or wrong. The problem with this is that there are well thought out and valid arguments (some of which I have presented) which do not agree with your morays, therefore your argument for taking away this right must devolve to "better safe than sorry". This is unacceptable to me and will always be. You bring up the case of a person in a persistant coma. That is a different discussion, but I think we can agree that the person likely met all qualifications for personhood before falling into their coma. Next I have the following questions: How likely is the person likely to come out of their coma? How many people come out of persistent comas vs how many do not? Has the person signed any medical directives, medical powers of attorney, etc. But to your original point, the individual certainly DID qualify as a person and may do so again. Further, they may or may not have provided instructions and wishes for such an eventuality. But if they have not and they will not recover, then the ethics of medical euthanasia is a valid question that I don't feel our society has sufficiently addressed. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!