Ten million aging baby boomers are expected to suffer from Alzheimer’s. Roe v. Wade gave boomers the right to terminate an unwanted fetus. We should draw on that Supreme Court decision to allow caregivers to terminate an unwanted “adult fetus.” Dementia, already known as “second childhood,” should be legally redefined as “second fetushood,” given that end-stage Alzheimer’s patients often retreat into a fetal position caused by joint contractions. Just as a pregnancy may threaten the health and welfare of the woman, an Alzheimer’s patient also poses a danger to the caregiver. In one study, long-term caregivers of dementia relatives were found to have significant levels of infectious illness, particularly respiratory tract infections, and were also more likely to be clinically depressed. As caregivers wait for their “right to choose” to be given equal status with a pregnant woman’s “right to choose,” some might seek offshore sanctuary. One could envision, for example, charter flights to the Caribbean where a “second fetushood” could be terminated in a hospice specializing in “final memory care.” We should not lose this opportunity to create the perfect Circle of Death. Baby boomers who aborted unwanted, expensive burdens will themselves be “aborted” when they become unwanted, expensive burdens. Divine, sublime symmetry.
I guess this is a semi sarcastic attempt to make a point about pro life My mother had Alzheimer We did a years worth of home care She recently declined, then died My father and several aunts and uncles suffered similar fates I have several cousins who now have Alzheimers Clearly you have never had to deal with the eviscerating burdens of Alzheimers disease. I find your crass levity trying to make a political point to be vile
The OP is a fallacy of false equivalency, in that such boomers are living human beings where as a fetus is . . . a fetus.
There is no "Adult Fetus" as that is an oxymoron and few if any people would agree to terminate their mother of father....you of course know all this but decided to troll for your entertainment. not realizing your ignorance provides entertainment to others.
Is it? Pro-choicers basically claim that a fetus does not have rights because it has the "brain of an animal", "cannot walk & talk", etc. Well surprise, surprise, many Alzheimers patients cannot do this either! What's the fundamental brain difference between one of these Alzheimers patients and a fetus? Can't they be grouped in the same category, according to the criteria set out by Pro-Choicers? If we're only looking at the brain, it seems to me that the two would have to be grouped in the same category. If not, we're back to "the fetus is inside the woman" arguments, which are apparently pretty problematic, because every time I bring those up, Pro-Choicers keep deflecting back to brain development arguments. I don't think Pro-Choicers can win based on only the "fetus is inside the woman" argument.
IF we were but we're not.... One has to be born to have rights, the elderly are born, the fetus is not. . NO, they do NOT. The "fetus inside the woman USING HER BODY to sustain it's life " argument stands firm.. That's because it is NOT used....
Exactly. Now we're switching to a different argument, one that has nothing to do with fetal brain development, or innate characteristics of the fetus. You have to do that, to avoid sounding absurd in this thread.
The born have rights and the unborn do not. The OP wants to take away BORN human's rights...….a really bad thing.
But FoxHastings, that is only your personal opinion. Other Pro-Choicers do not share your beliefs about the particular reasons abortion should be legal. For other Pro-Choicers, who view the abortion issue as being mainly about fetal brain development, the argument in the OP may hold a lot of weight. And there are also of course parallels about being unable to care for oneself, and being unwanted by the rest of society. (which are additional reasons many Pro-Choicers have often cited in favor of abortion)
That is criteria YOU just made up to try to cover your stupidity and certainly not what anyone else uses. The fundamental difference you are trying to avoid would be that one actually HAS a brain and the other does not. One has spent a lifetime as a functional adult citizen and the other is heading for the beginning of it.
Oh, so if one has been a functional adult in the past, that is completely different from having a potential future ahead to becoming a functional adult. Why do you think the past should be more defining for an individual than the future?
kazenatu is not showing a mindfulness I normally associate with the name. The RvW gang have been winning on that last point for 46 years.
I know that most people would prefer to end their lives if they have advanced Alzheimer’s. That should be allowed. Would you want to live your life In a vegetative state?
Are Pro-Choicers now admitting they think we should off Alzheimer patients, if they do not have any family around who want them to continue living? That's almost what it's sounding like, judging by some of the posts in this thread.
Can't tell whether serious or mocking to make a point... In principle I disagree. Illness doesnt negate human rights. However... My grandfather had alzheimers. After watching him slowly become an invalid and eventually die after months unconcious on a feeding tube, my dad (his son) told me that if he (my dad) ever loses his mind in a way that he can't care for himself, that I am to take him camping deep in the woods somewhere and leave him to nature. And he was completely serious. I will tell my children to do precisely the same for me. Doing that would of course be illegal, so I'll do something else, but the sentiment is relevent to this subject. Its also worth noting IMO that this is a personal, voluntary choice, and it should remain so.
A fetus is a developmental stage of a human being. Do you need my fourth grader to explain simple science to you?