Your views on ending human life: when is it acceptable? A debate about

[Syco21]

Well... first off... if you're not talking about euthanasia, but mass murder, then why bring it up? I fail to see how 'Hitler killed a bunch of people' is relevant to the debate.

It's already been explained to you.

 

Second of all, and I think I was pretty clear, but let me just spell it out: I was talking about a parasite in the strictest, biological sense of the word.

Actually you're not. You're adding a caveat. The most strictest sense of the word would be an entity that feeds off of another living entity in order to survive. This is what all three definitions share, it is the origin of the word.

 

Second of all, and I think I was pretty clear, but let me just spell it out: I was talking about a parasite in the strictest, biological sense of the word. The difference between an embryo or foetus (or a zygote for that matter, but let's not call ending a pregnancy in that state 'abortion'. If you have to ask why: it's because a zygote is just a clump of cells, and other anti-conception methods - that are NOT abortion - can be used to end a pregnancy in that phase) and the examples you're giving is that an embryo or foetus is not yet a person.

 

Therefore, your analogy of 'why not just legalize killing people in comas etc' is flawed because of that simple fact: they are people.

They would therefore fall under the 'requested euthanasia' part of my argument, where, as you can see, I advocate no such thing as 'killing them for the good of everyone else'. I advocate: if you wish to die you should be able to do it quickly and painlessly through euthanasia. This is done upon YOUR request.

Again, I am NOT talking about euthanasia. You're just wasting time typing about it.

 

So basically, you're assigning unborn children the label of parasite without any justification, no logical reasoning based on science to back up your opinion. Essentially it's "unborn children are parasites because I say so, but other parasites are not parasites because I say so"

 

So I go back to the very beginning. What magic takes place at birth that makes an unborn child suddenly a living, breathing human? The fact that a child inside the womb is living within another person is irrelevant. The poor, people that require life support for any duration and others all benefit by depriving other people of sustenance. Be it money, food, organs etc. When a person gets a heart transplant, they are preventing another person that also needs that heart from receiving it. Prisoners, the sick, the mentally ill and welfare recipients are provided housing, food, healthcare and clothing by depriving other people of money.

 

Some of these people are provided for at the detriment of others. Take for example Social Security in the US. SS takes out a large portion of my income, money that I can't afford to lose. Social Security benefactors are benefiting to my detriment.

 

So again, what magic differentiates the unborn from the other parasites of society?

[AVDutch]

So again, what magic differentiates the unborn from the other parasites of society?

 

And in that last word in your sentence lies the fallacy of your logic. I am calling foetuses biological parasites of your mother. Your examples are not biological parasites.

 

Unborn children are not parasites because they say they are. I am not simply adding a caveat. I am simply using parasite in the biological sense, i.e. referring to an organism that derives nutrients from it's host, and which is a burden to the host.

 

This is not my imagined definition of a parasite. This is fact. Not even that advanced of a fact. It's really just basic high-school biology.

 

And it is not 'magic' that takes place at the moment of birth. It is simply the moment in time at which the foetus stops being a parasite (again, in the biological sense of the word) to its host (the mother). It is really the moment that one becomes an separate person.

 

Also:

 

So I go back to the very beginning. What magic takes place at birth that makes an unborn child suddenly a living, breathing human?

 

I hate to say it, but a foetus in the womb is most certainly not breathing. Just pointing it out.

 

Also, I said:

 

Sure there are valid reasons for enduring this relationship (from the mother's perspective), but that doesn't change the fact that an unborn child is biologically a parasite.

 

Notice how I used the word biologically.

Edited October 22, 2012 by AVDutch

[Syco21]

And in that last word in your sentence lies the fallacy of your logic. I am calling foetuses biological parasites of your mother. Your examples are not biological parasites.

The fact that a child inside the womb is living within another person is irrelevant.

 

 

Unborn children are not parasites because they say they are. I am not simply adding a caveat. I am simply using parasite in the biological sense, i.e. referring to an organism that derives nutrients from it's host, and which is a burden to the host.

Right, and the sick, the poor, the disabled etc etc are all depriving sustenance from their host society. So why is one parasite given rights and protections and the other isn't? They're both parasites, they both deprive sustenance from their host and one even moreso than the other(hint, it's not the fetus).

 

This is not my imagined definition of a parasite. This is fact. Not even that advanced of a fact. It's really just basic high-school biology.

Yet, you're ignoring the basic definition of parasite.

 

And it is not 'magic' that takes place at the moment of birth. It is simply the moment in time at which the foetus stops being a parasite (again, in the biological sense of the word) to its host (the mother). It is really the moment that one becomes an separate person.

Again, this is an arbitrary distinction lacking a logically sound reasoning. Whether the parasite is living inside, on or feeding remotely does not change the fact the parasite is still feeding off the host.

 

But hey, let's use another example. When my grandmother was dying of cancer, she was a massive burden on me. I had to take off of work, which deprived me of money, which deprived me of groceries, I had to take her to the hospital, which deprived me of gas. I had pay for doctors and nurses, which was money that would have been spent on gas, groceries and bills. Would I have been justified in killing her without her consent?

 

She was not an independent person. She was a DEPENDENT, reliant on me and my family for survival. There was no significant difference between her situation and that of an unborn child.

[AVDutch]

And in that last word in your sentence lies the fallacy of your logic. I am calling foetuses biological parasites of your mother. Your examples are not biological parasites.

The fact that a child inside the womb is living within another person is irrelevant.

 

 

Unborn children are not parasites because they say they are. I am not simply adding a caveat. I am simply using parasite in the biological sense, i.e. referring to an organism that derives nutrients from it's host, and which is a burden to the host.

Right, and the sick, the poor, the disabled etc etc are all depriving sustenance from their host society. So why is one parasite given rights and protections and the other isn't? They're both parasites, they both deprive sustenance from their host and one even moreso than the other(hint, it's not the fetus).

 

This is not my imagined definition of a parasite. This is fact. Not even that advanced of a fact. It's really just basic high-school biology.

Yet, you're ignoring the basic definition of parasite.

 

And it is not 'magic' that takes place at the moment of birth. It is simply the moment in time at which the foetus stops being a parasite (again, in the biological sense of the word) to its host (the mother). It is really the moment that one becomes an separate person.

Again, this is an arbitrary distinction lacking a logically sound reasoning. Whether the parasite is living inside, on or feeding remotely does not change the fact the parasite is still feeding off the host.

 

But hey, let's use another example. When my grandmother was dying of cancer, she was a massive burden on me. I had to take off of work, which deprived me of money, which deprived me of groceries, I had to take her to the hospital, which deprived me of gas. I had pay for doctors and nurses, which was money that would have been spent on gas, groceries and bills. Would I have been justified in killing her without her consent?

 

She was not an independent person. She was a DEPENDENT, reliant on me and my family for survival. There was no significant difference between her situation and that of an unborn child.

 

I am not ignoring the basic definition of a parasite. You are. I never used the word 'independent'. I used the word 'separate'. A word that is different in meaning. Saying 'the moment of birth is when a foetus stops being a biological parasite' is not something arbitrary. It is not even an opinion. It is a fact. Also, just because a baby breast feeds, this does not mean it still is a parasite after it is born.

 

Obviously you would not have been justified in killing your grandmother without her consent. But this is - again - because she was a seperate person. A foetus is, as I have shown you time and again, not a seperate entity, but a parasite who is entirely dependent on its host. And through this dependance it drains nutrients from its host, which negatively impact the host itself. Ergo: biological parasitism. Not a 'burden to society' parasite, but a biological one.

 

Unlike your grandmother, who might have been a burden, but it did not make her a biological parasite.

[Syco21]

I'm still waiting for a logically sound reason for the difference between an unborn child and the other examples I have given. All you keep saying is that an unborn child is inside it's mother as though this were some sort of crime.

 

Once again, whether the parasite is feeding on, in or remotely is irrelevant. The affect remains the same: feeding off it's host in order to survive.

[AVDutch]

I'm still waiting for a logically sound reason for the difference between an unborn child and the other examples I have given. All you keep saying is that an unborn child is inside it's mother as though this were some sort of crime.

 

Once again, whether the parasite is feeding on, in or remotely is irrelevant. The affect remains the same: feeding off it's host in order to survive.

 

I've explained it time and again to you. I'll explain it again.

 

A foetus is a parasite, biologically, because well... it fits the definition. I've explained why and how repeatedly, go back and read it if you want. You're right that there are parasites that do not live in but on an organism, exoparasites (as opposed to endoparasites) and a foetus is an endoparasite. But once born it doesn't become an exoparasite. It's direct link to its host is severed, and while it receives (usually at least) breast feeding, it is now no longer - biologically, NOT talking psychologically here, as I can imagine situations where a baby would be psychologically harmful to its mother, because that is irrelevant to biological parasitism, not my opinion, but also fact - harmful to its host.

 

I'm not saying its a crime for the child to be inside its mother, or that gestation is awful, all I'm pointing out is that the foetus inside its mother acts as a parasite, and not as a separate human being, and it is still part of the host, therefore the host should be allowed to do with it as she sees fit.

 

You can keep saying that I'm wrong about the entire parasite thing, but that doesn't change that what I'm saying is fact. Also, none of the entities you have described even remotely fit the description of a biological parasite. Once again, not opinion, fact.

Edited October 23, 2012 by AVDutch

[Syco21]

You have not explained anything, you have only found new ways of repeating your original statement.

 

I have asked repeated now, what difference does it make whether the parasite is feeding from within or remotely. I have repeatedly explained that someone like my grandmother is 100% dependent upon the care of another person, not unlike an unborn child within the womb. The only difference being that one is physically separated and the other is not. So you state that an unborn child is fully dependent upon it's mother for sustenance, and that this is, in your opinion, a harmful relationship. So you say women ought to have the right to abort a child at any point during the pregnancy. You use the physical aspect of pregnancy(the baby living within the womb) to justify that idea.

 

So again, why does physical separation matter when all other factors remain the same?

[AVDutch]

You have not explained anything, you have only found new ways of repeating your original statement.

 

I have asked repeated now, what difference does it make whether the parasite is feeding from within or remotely. I have repeatedly explained that someone like my grandmother is 100% dependent upon the care of another person, not unlike an unborn child within the womb. The only difference being that one is physically separated and the other is not. So you state that an unborn child is fully dependent upon it's mother for sustenance, and that this is, in your opinion, a harmful relationship. So you say women ought to have the right to abort a child at any point during the pregnancy. You use the physical aspect of pregnancy(the baby living within the womb) to justify that idea.

 

So again, why does physical separation matter when all other factors remain the same?

 

I have said the same thing over and over, I will say it again.

 

What I am saying is that the foetus is a biological parasite. your grandmother is not. It is not merely that the only difference is that one is physically seperated, while the other is not. It does not matter whether or not she is dependent upon care, she is a seperate person, and not a biological parasite. It can be argued that she is a burden, and perhaps even a parasite to society in the sens that she provides nothing in return to the services rendered to her (although this is probably not true), but it simply cannot be argued that your grandmother is a biological parasite. Therein lies the difference. Yes, I do advocate that women should have the right to abort a child at any point during the pregnancy, because, up until the moment of birth it still their own body that they are deciding over. They are not 'taking a separate human life' because the foetus that they are killing is not a separate being. It is not yet a person, and therefore should not be accorded rights associated with a person. Furthermore, its perceived 'right to life' should not supersede the wishes of its host, who runs very real medical risks during childbirth, and even during pregnancy. Risks she would not run otherwise, not risks from daily life! Therefore, the desires of the mother are what matters, and if she desires to have the pregnancy aborted, she is exerting her right to manage her own body as she sees fit.

 

For the record, I would like to state that I think abortion after labor has begun but before the child is born is permissible under certain very specific circumstances. Namely that not doing so would endanger the life of the mother. Otherwise, the foetus should be removed as quickly as possible (which is in the best interest of the mother) at which point it has been born, and abortion is no longer permissible.

 

One more thing: no-one is forcing you to care for your grandmother. Of course, it is the 'right thing to do', but there is no law that makes it necessary to do so. Why should it be necessary to give birth to a child once you're pregnant? And before you say it: the reason that aborting at any stage should be ethically (and legally) permissible, while caring for your grandmother - i.e. not "aborting" her, if we boil down the analogy to its roots - is the 'right thing to do' stems from the fact that your grandmother is a seperate person whereas a foetus is not (as I have explained above).

 

Killing your grandmother and aborting a foetus are also different, because you can simply walk away from caring for your grandmother, and therefore it is not necessary to kill her to lift your burden. However, you cannot walk away form carrying a foetus, unless you chose to have an abortion.

Edited October 23, 2012 by AVDutch

[ginnyfizz]

The question of assisted suicide is the part I'm not sure about. In an ideal world, where Machiavellian behaviour wasn't so common, it'd be fine and dandy provided we could get real consent from the person, in the form of a living will (in case of coma, for example) or otherwise (in the case of someone still capable of communication). However, I'm going to be a bit cynical and say that right now, we have to tread extremely carefully. In the current situation, if Great-Aunt Bertha is unable to care for herself, foul-tempered, has some memory loss and is rich, well, who's to say the younger relatives won't band together to get her to sign the form so she dies and they get the insurance money...

 

Exactly my concerns, BlackBaron2. The fact that inconvenient old people in particular might be browbeaten into requesting euthanasia by greedy relatives. I know that my sister is likely to try that in the case of my parents, hence the fact that I will make MY views crystal clear to the medics.

 

And no, AVDutch, de facto euthanasia WITHOUT consent is NOT rare at all. Did you not read the bit where I said that UK GP's have been asked to draw up a list from amongst their list of patients of people who should be DNR? Or that people in hospital are put on DNR and feeding and hydration withdrawn without discussion? Whilst abuses like this are going on it would be dangerous to make a law legalising assisted suicide. There would have to be draconian provisions that unless explicit consent and discussion should be proved, the assister would be staring down the barrel of a murder charge. I will certainly call the police if it happens to my old Mum.

[AVDutch]

The question of assisted suicide is the part I'm not sure about. In an ideal world, where Machiavellian behaviour wasn't so common, it'd be fine and dandy provided we could get real consent from the person, in the form of a living will (in case of coma, for example) or otherwise (in the case of someone still capable of communication). However, I'm going to be a bit cynical and say that right now, we have to tread extremely carefully. In the current situation, if Great-Aunt Bertha is unable to care for herself, foul-tempered, has some memory loss and is rich, well, who's to say the younger relatives won't band together to get her to sign the form so she dies and they get the insurance money...

 

Exactly my concerns, BlackBaron2. The fact that inconvenient old people in particular might be browbeaten into requesting euthanasia by greedy relatives. I know that my sister is likely to try that in the case of my parents, hence the fact that I will make MY views crystal clear to the medics.

 

And no, AVDutch, de facto euthanasia WITHOUT consent is NOT rare at all. Did you not read the bit where I said that UK GP's have been asked to draw up a list from amongst their list of patients of people who should be DNR? Or that people in hospital are put on DNR and feeding and hydration withdrawn without discussion? Whilst abuses like this are going on it would be dangerous to make a law legalising assisted suicide. There would have to be draconian provisions that unless explicit consent and discussion should be proved, the assister would be staring down the barrel of a murder charge. I will certainly call the police if it happens to my old Mum.

 

Really? De Facto Euthanasia without consent not rare? (Not trying to be sarcastic here, I'm expressing genuine surprise). Within the medical system that I'm currently studying in, euthanasia without consent is extremely rare. Illicit euthanasia does happen, but more often than not, it is performed legally (it is legal in Belgium).

 

However, illicit euthanasia is more prevalent in countries where it is illegal (I believe that is the case in the UK). Keep in mind that there is a difference between DNR and euthanasia. Yes, withdrawing life-support is passive euthanasia, but I'm curious, do you have statistics for how often this happens without consent? Because from what I know of other medical systems, systems where it is illegal, euthanasia without consent is very rare (Note that in case of brain-death, withdrawing life-support is not passive euthanasia, but might misconstrued as such).

 

I know this because my uncle is a doctor in a country where active euthanasia is illegal. However, illicit active euthanasia with consent by patients happens. Not regularly, but it happens. However, he said that he has never heard of been involved in a case in which any form of euthanasia was performed without consent.