It's obvious Abortion is wrong

Oh look! The one comparing abortion to murdering a baby in their crib is calling others "Desperate!"

:rotf

 

Even if.

 

Using the criteria listed here you could say that switching off life support in the brain dead is abortion of an adult - but why stop there?

Stupidity is the only universal capital crime where the sentence is carried out automatically. Let us stop all unnecessary deaths of everyone everywhere.

 

Depends - usually it is not just one doctor and nothing is decided without the family. Having said that I had a case of a patient who was a high spinal fracture quadriplegic - his injury, through a rare and bizarre complication started to worsen and extend upwards from the original site - he was left virtually with only his eye movements as a means of communication. He was not even using that so no, interaction by him with the outside world Totally locked in his own body. His sisters, who never visited, were refusing end of life care or palliation. Eventually he was transferred to another hospital and it was decided to withdraw support. I can only think how relieved he must have been

Not all "life" is precious

- - - Updated - - -

You are comparing a potential with a reality

 

when the government does it against the will of the parent, or next of kin... it's murder imo, the choice should always be the next of kins... or the patient if they are able

.

 

In general the patient's or next of kin's preferences will override other ethical considerations. We say to do no harm, but harm is subjectively and individually defined. The primary exception to this is when we know the medical care will not achieve the aim that the patient thinks it will, or cannot achieve any benefit at all. Keeping a brain dead person "alive" for example, is in reality futile and should not be forced on the medical team no matter what the family thinks because if they think anything can be of benefit, they are simply uninformed or in denial. Doctors aren't always clear about these kinds of things though, because these are difficult things to say to a grieving family and it should be handled carefully.

 

I was a disability support worker for a decade. I worked with a few individuals locked into their bodies. Two were congenital, but one was a young man in his late 20s. Very good looking, over 6ft tall. He used to be an equestrian, a hiker. Grew up in the bush on a station.

He came off his horse in his late teens. Couldn't move anything anymore. He was tube fed. Catheterised. Communicated by blinking. He couldn't speak but he could vocalise and you could hear the rage and despair.

I often wondered what he thought of his parents pro-life decision on his behalf.

 

I just don't know why people like that can't be allowed to die.....how inhumane to keep them alive just so someone else can feel better....sickening

 

Does anybody here have a clear, rational way to morally distinguish a newborn baby from a fetus?

 

Magical thinking. People think THEIR loved one will experience a miracle, or science will come up with the cure or they just can't bear to switch the machine off or the responsibility for the decision is just so burdensome they freeze and can't make it. My job taught me to have it in writing so my family don't need to decide.

 

In the young man's case, his parents decision began and ended with their ability to handle anything life threw at them as a couple. Noble, isn't it? Inspiring.

 

A newborn baby is a person who functions at the same basic level as any person. It uses its own organs to stay alive in the same way we all do, even though some of us may need medical intervention to do so.

None of us need to be attached to the inside of another person in order to survive.

 

What do you mean by "basic level"? This is pretty a vague term without elaboration.

What is the moral relevancy of that?

 

We stay alive using our own efforts and our own organs.

That merely being alive doesn't impact on the health or well being of another person.

 

Again, what is the moral relevancy of that?

 

In the sixties when invasive ventilation first was used (prior to that was the iron lungs etc) they did not have criteria for brain death and so had no guides as to when to terminate care. What rapidly became apparent was that if the brain stem is dead the rest of the body deteriorates regardless. I have seen one case where the patient was kept alive with the most extraordinary interventions because of the denial of the family. This guy was six months in ICU - he never healed any of the original fractures, at one time we had him on independent lung ventilation and slowly the body deteriorated. In the end you could smell it from two corridors away and still the family were in denial he was dying.

Denial can be so strong that it warps reality

- - - Updated - - -

What is the moral relevancy of you asking about the moral relevancy?

 

Holding one to a standard. I predict he will fail.

 

That it is immoral to deliberately cause harm to another person.

When a woman becomes pregnant, she decides whether or not she is willing to undergo the risks involved in giving birth.
That is how it should be.

 

Okay we can accept that I guess. But you still haven't really answered the question. Directly, why is the way you've implied person-hood could be defined the morally relevant definition? Why is your definition of a "person" not, in fact, arbitrary?

That's how it already is, no matter what the laws on abortion may be.

 

Since morality is, by it's very nature relative to the society and the time frame then the question has to be - which "standard"?

 

I don't because it has nothing to do with morals.....one is a fetus and the other is a newborn....one is a Chevy and the other a Toyota ...nothing, not even "morals" can change the facts..

 

If I were in that situation, I would want someone to end it for me. I see nothing good about living like that.

 

That's my family's instructions.

 

I have seen a lot of decisions like that in the city but fewer in the rural areas and even fewer among the rural indigenous population. They, our indigenous, have an acceptance of death that is not seen elsewhere. When I asked a health care worker why this was so she replied "I have lost 6 aunties in the last 2 years to kidney failure and heart disease". Early deaths and a very broad social network have brought mortality home to them.

Anyone who thinks there is nothing worse than death has never worked in an ICU

 

Since the definition of abortion is "the termination of a pregnancy", there can be no "abortion of the born." Please use better terminology.