Why It’s Hard to Dialogue With Secularists and Leftists

[MikeK]

I don't understand. Why is it treating the child like a person to allow it to be born? What's the difference in allowing the child to suffer before birth, or allowing the child to suffer after birth? Allowing the child to suffer after birth only really adds the additional trauma of the actual birth, which seems a little cruel. Is there something especially significant about birth that we should make the child go through it, just to let them die?

We don't make children go through birth, they just do in the natural order of things. We ought not make people die, they just do as part of the natural order of things. Where there exists a health malady that we can repair, we should repair it. Where death is inevitable, as it will someday be for all of us, we should make that death as comfortable as possible, but not directly cause it.

I disagree. Have you ever watched a love one suffering for months on end with no chance of recovery, knowing that the suffering was only going to get exponentially worse?

Yes, several times. All of them knew what they were facing and all of them had the oppotunity to end their lives on their own. None of them eleceted to. Far be it from me to do to them what they elected not to do to themselves. They made their decisions and I respected them.

Tell me how allowing a loved one to suffer is promoting good. Please, criticize my decision, but explain your superior moral reasoning slowly.

Every time we elect to take a the life of another person, every time we decide who does and does not deserve to live, every time we decide who's life is too miserable to endure and needs to be snuffed out out of kindness, we drift closer to becoming monsters. I have no strong issues with physician-assisted suicide in cases where the person being effected gave very clear instructions as to what their desires were, but I will not decide which lives are valluable enough to protect or which lives are too misserable to allow to continue. Most of the human inhabitants of the continent of Africa live under conditions that I would call miserable by the standards of comfort that I know and enjoy. That doesn't mean that those poor suffering people should be killed.

 

[Chany]

The ability to survive outside the womb.

Jim

Is that with or without aid?

 

[MikeK]

St Joseph's Hospital in Pheonix Arizona was one.

If I'm not mistaken, several Medical experts spoke about that instance and stated that there were in fact ways to address the woman's health issues without directly causing the death of the child.

 

[MKJ]

But there are cases where the mother's health is in such crisis, delivery is not possible without killing her, nor is a C-section. A deliberate abortion is the only method for saving the mother, but keep in mind, this is on a non-viable fetus.

Jim

Jim,

There are only two ways for the baby to come out of the mother, whether it is alive or dead. You can do it through c-section, or it can come out of the vagina.

In an abortion the baby normally is delivered through the vagina. They kill the fetus by some means, and then administer powerful drugs to have the mother deliver the body. This is not all that different than delivering a live baby, though it may be less gentle as there is no need to worry about the babies response to the birth.

I am not sure what kind of medical scenario are you envisioning here - it doesn`t actually seem much like any real one I have heard of. If the mother cannot have either a section or vaginal delvery, there are really no other options.

 

[LoAmmi]

Every time we elect to take a the life of another person, every time we decide who does and does not deserve to live, every time we decide who's life is too miserable to endure and needs to be snuffed out out of kindness, we drift closer to becoming monsters. I have no strong issues with physician-assisted suicide in cases where the person being effected gave very clear instructions as to what their desires were, but I will not decide which lives are valluable enough to protect or which lives are too misserable to allow to continue. Most of the human inhabitants of the continent of Africa live under conditions that I would call miserable by the standards of comfort that I know and enjoy. That doesn't mean that those poor suffering people should be killed.

My family went though a situation and I want to know what you (and others) think about it.

My uncle was a recovering drug addict who, unfortunately, had a relapse and had an overdose. He was in the hospital for several days when it was basically confirmed that he had no brain activity at all and the only thing keeping him alive, if you can call it that, were the machines connected to him. The family gave it another week and there was no change.

The decision was made to turn off the machines. His body died almost immediately because he wasn't breathing. I say his body because I believe he died long before that happened.

Did the family make an immoral decision?

 

[JGG]

We don't make children go through birth, they just do in the natural order of things. We ought not make people die, they just do as part of the natural order of things. Where there exists a health malady that we can repair, we should repair it. Where death is inevitable, as it will someday be for all of us, we should make that death as comfortable as possible, but not directly cause it.



Yes, several times. All of them knew what they were facing and all of them had the oppotunity to end their lives on their own. None of them eleceted to. Far be it from me to do to them what they elected not to do to themselves. They made their decisions and I respected them.

But they did give you instructions?

Every time we elect to take a the life of another person, every time we decide who does and does not deserve to live, every time we decide who's life is too miserable to endure and needs to be snuffed out out of kindness, we drift closer to becoming monsters.

My mother had a rare form of lymphoma called Burkits. A cancer that eventually attacked her spinal chord, and her brain. For a year she was in increasing pain, as her body would interpret slight touches as something approximately equal to an electrical shock. It was clearly agonizing. For the final two months she lost complete control of her body. She had no motor function of her limbs, but they still twitched as her spine essentially fired agonizing pain from just a touch, just lying on a bed, or eventually for no reason at all. And this pain got worse, and worse, and more and more frequent. She had lost her sight, her jaw and tongue both had no feeling and she could not speak. But she gurgle, moan and scream. Toward the end we had no way of knowing whether she could hear us, because she lost the ability to respond, but essentially she was trapped in her own body, but that body was in horrible pain.

Now, how is it that I'm not a monster for allowing her to live a further three or four months like that, but would be if I allow it to end? You're calling me a monster for not wishing to watch a person, much less my mother go through that? For months?

Suppose I had been the one responsible for putting her through that kind of suffering, then would I be a monster?

I have no strong issues with physician-assisted suicide in cases where the person being effected gave very clear instructions as to what their desires were, but I will not decide which lives are valluable enough to protect or which lives are too misserable to allow to continue. Most of the human inhabitants of the continent of Africa live under conditions that I would call miserable by the standards of comfort that I know and enjoy. That doesn't mean that those poor suffering people should be killed.

 

[Chany]

I disagree. Have you ever watched a love one suffering for months on end with no chance of recovery, knowing that the suffering was only going to get exponentially worse? I have. In fact, I was the one who had to make that decision.

Tell me how allowing a loved one to suffer is promoting good. Please, criticize my decision, but explain your superior moral reasoning slowly.

What you are describing is moral utilitarianism; that is, something is moral when the good achieved outways the evil achieved. The problem with this is the logic it entails: any act that achieves more good than evil is morally permissible. It does not matter how much or how horrible the evil is, as long as the good gained outways it.

This allows us to judge people's worth and decide who's life is worth more. This line of thought supports the idea of raping, torturing, and killing an innocent, lowly person to save the lives of 50 more "important" higher ups. This the line of morality that would support slavery if it could achieve the balance of good outwaying evil.

What this line of thought accepts is more atrocious than the alternative of not crossing lines. No matter how much good killing an innocent can achieve, we can never kill an innocent, as it is wrong.

The answer isn't what we would like, but we must stay logically consistent, lest we turn to moral utilitarianism. Therefore, we cannot perform mercy killings, no matter how much pain it can avoid.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Is that with or without aid?

Without norminal care that medicine can provide in today's world.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If I'm not mistaken, several Medical experts spoke about that instance and stated that there were in fact ways to address the woman's health issues without directly causing the death of the child.

The mistake is taking the word of medical experts over the medical experts who were involved directly with the case.

Some of those medical experts were from pro-life sites.

The only one's responsible and with the first hand knowledge are the panel of doctors who were on the case and made the decision.

As their spokesman said, "we could not just sit by and watch her[the mother] die."


Jim

 

[JGG]

What you are describing is moral utilitarianism; that is, something is moral when the good achieved outways the evil achieved. The problem with this is the logic it entails: any act that achieves more good than evil is morally permissible. It does not matter how much or how horrible the evil is, as long as the good gained outways it.

So death is more horrible than suffering? Would you say death is bad?

This allows us to judge people's worth and decide who's life is worth more. This line of thought supports the idea of raping, torturing, and killing an innocent, lowly person to save the lives of 50 more "important" higher ups. This the line of morality that would support slavery if it could achieve the balance of good outwaying evil.

That's a different situation. Your weighing the worth of one life against others. You say that this life is worth less than those ones. It's not the same reasoning.

What this line of thought accepts is more atrocious than the alternative of not crossing lines. No matter how much good killing an innocent can achieve, we can never kill an innocent, as it is wrong.

The answer isn't what we would like, but we must stay logically consistent, lest we turn to moral utilitarianism. Therefore, we cannot perform mercy killings, no matter how much pain it can avoid.

So if I allow this suffering, I am a good person. If I caused the suffering, what am I?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim,

There are only two ways for the baby to come out of the mother, whether it is alive or dead. You can do it through c-section, or it can come out of the vagina.

In an abortion the baby normally is delivered through the vagina. They kill the fetus by some means, and then administer powerful drugs to have the mother deliver the body. This is not all that different than delivering a live baby, though it may be less gentle as there is no need to worry about the babies response to the birth.

I am not sure what kind of medical scenario are you envisioning here - it doesn't actually seem much like any real one I have heard of. If the mother cannot have either a section or vaginal delivery, there are really no other options.

Natural delivery and C-sections are not the only two ways. Dissecting the fetus while it's in the mother's womb and sucking the parts out is another and which was done in Phoenix.

My daughter gave birth to a 20 week still born, and my wife was in the room. Delivery is still physically exerting, even at that stage.

The case of the mother in Phoenix, she would not survive natural delivery, nor surgery.

Anyway, I'm not the medical expert, the panel of doctors on the case were.
I yield to their expertise.

Jim

 

[AMDG]

Is that with or without aid?

Good point. That point is present even with adults. And don't forget that the aid is most likely of the "temporary" variety. Medical science has indeed progressed.

 

[MKJ]

St Joseph's Hospital in Pheonix Arizona was one.

This was the original story, but more calme out later.




Jim

There was no reason in that case to kill the baby before inducing delivery, if that was indeed necessary. It has more to do with a mind-set people have about delivering a child they know will almost certainly die, maybe even during the birth. For whatever reason, people feel more comfortable with killing the baby and having a still-birth - I suspect it is often because they sub-consciously feel that it will be more like never having had a child, or not wanting to actually watch the child die.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

There was no reason in that case to kill the baby before inducing delivery, if that was indeed necessary. It has more to do with a mind-set people have about delivering a child they know will almost certainly die, maybe even during the birth. For whatever reason, people feel more comfortable with killing the baby and having a still-birth - I suspect it is often because they sub-consciously feel that it will be more like never having had a child, or not wanting to actually watch the child die.

According the to doctors on the case, the mother would most certainly die if they did nothing.

Their goal was to try and save both mother and fetus, but they could not save the fetus by saving the mother.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Good point. That point is present even with adults. And don't forget that the aid is most likely of the "temporary" variety. Medical science has indeed progressed.

But in the case of a fetus under 20 weeks, the medical professionals have already determined that it is unethical experimental research to attempt to save a fetus. The technology doesn't exist and never will.

They can't grow lungs, which is what the fetus needs at 18 weeks.


Jim

 

[MKJ]

According the to doctors on the case, the mother would most certainly die if they did nothing.

Their goal was to try and save both mother and fetus, but they could not save the fetus by saving the mother.

Jim

I have my doubts about this case. I am not particularly hard-nosed on this as an issue - I have no problem with the normal treatments for ectopic pregnancy, and I don`t really accept the whole double-effect argument that some use - I think it is an abortion.

But I think the doctors were overstating this case - they did not know what would happen in the same way that we know what will happen in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

It is true, I am sure, that the mother could have died during delivery. That is a real risk of pregnancy, and in some cases it is greater than others.

 

[MKJ]

But in the case of a fetus under 20 weeks, the medical professionals have already determined that it is unethical experimental research to attempt to save a fetus. The technology doesn't exist and never will.

They can't grow lungs, which is what the fetus needs at 18 weeks.


Jim

Yes, I don`t have an issue with this. Of course in the future, it could change. But there is a point where interventions to prevent death are just inappropriate and not respectful of life.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes, I don`t have an issue with this. Of course in the future, it could change. But there is a point where interventions to prevent death are just inappropriate and not respectful of life.

The problem is, it can't change unless they do unethical experimentation on a human fetus, and they're not going to go down that path. I'm sure doctors in some other nation will do so, but it's not ethical.


Jim

 

[MKJ]

The problem is, it can't change unless they do unethical experimentation on a human fetus, and they're not going to go down that path. I'm sure doctors in some other nation will do so, but it's not ethical.


Jim

I don`t see how this would be necessary. At one time saving a baby of 20 weeks would have been considered impossible, and now it is not. Some have thought for example if it was possible to provide a sort of substitute womb until the fetus was able to survive alone, that might be an option for such small babies.

Not all experimental treatments are necessarily unethical, either.

In any case, the course of science and technology can often be surprising, so we really can`t rule anything out.

 

[MikeK]

My family went though a situation and I want to know what you (and others) think about it.

My uncle was a recovering drug addict who, unfortunately, had a relapse and had an overdose. He was in the hospital for several days when it was basically confirmed that he had no brain activity at all and the only thing keeping him alive, if you can call it that, were the machines connected to him. The family gave it another week and there was no change.

The decision was made to turn off the machines. His body died almost immediately because he wasn't breathing. I say his body because I believe he died long before that happened.

Did the family make an immoral decision?

From A catholic standpoint they did not make an immoral decision. We are not required to jump through every hoop immaginable to preserve life, we simply cannot directly cause the death of an innocent person.