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

[Syco21]

You amaze me, Nintii, I don't think it is acceptable to call anyone a parasite, have never used that term and nor did I actually say that an unborn child is a parasite, so I just can't quite figure out where Syco21 is coming from. In fact it's doubly baffling since actually his views and mine are about the same in regards to abortion, IIRC I have already said that I view the use of it as just an alternative means of contraception, as a first resort, with dismay. I'm none too happy about late abortions either, although it should be said that in peri menopausal women where the menstrual periods have become irregular, it is not unknown for a pregnancy to be mistaken for cessation of the menses. In such a case,agonizing dilemmas can arise.

Dutch, I believe, brought up the parasite issue. He was the first to refer to anyone as a parasite. My subsequent responses were aimed solely at pointing out how offensive it is and how it doesn't make any real logical sense.

 

*shrugs* Personally I thought Dutch was talking about that in a strictly clinical sense. We have lots of organisms that live in our body, that subsist off of us. There is no real negative connotation to be made from that observation. It just is. And also not every woman in the world is in awe of the magic of pregnancy and child birth. Myself, I always kind of viewed like a little alien growing inside you. ;D

As I was doing, but it's still completely offensive. I don't think I made it very clear, so here goes: I don't think people living off of welfare are parasites or bad people, not as a whole. They are just people that are having very rough moments in their life and need some support to survive. They aren't parasites and they aren't bad people. But if we're going to start discussing the strict definition of the word, then it can be applied to them as well.

 

@Nintii: Thanks!

[AVDutch]

*shrugs* Personally I thought Dutch was talking about that in a strictly clinical sense. We have lots of organisms that live in our body, that subsist off of us. There is no real negative connotation to be made from that observation. It just is. And also not every woman in the world is in awe of the magic of pregnancy and child birth. Myself, I always kind of viewed like a little alien growing inside you. ;D

As I was doing, but it's still completely offensive. I don't think I made it very clear, so here goes: I don't think people living off of welfare are parasites or bad people, not as a whole. They are just people that are having very rough moments in their life and need some support to survive. They aren't parasites and they aren't bad people. But if we're going to start discussing the strict definition of the word, then it can be applied to them as well.

 

Yep, I was talking about it in a clinical sense. I certainly didn't mean to offend someone, and I never said (or intended to imply) that people living off welfare are parasites or bad people (again, in the clinical sense). I was just remarking upon a biological fact, that a foetus (or the infant in any stage of gestation really) can simply be considered a biological parasite to the body of the female.

 

I certainly didn't mean the word to apply to people on welfare, as I stated multiple times I was talking only in a biological sense of the word, where a parasite is simply an organism that sustains life by deriving nutrients from, and thereby being detrimental to, another organism. I perceived no negative connotation attached to this word, certainly not if one, as I am, was approaching the topic from a medical perspective. It is simply a statement. If anyone perceived my remarks of the foetus being a parasite as offensive to people on welfare, or any other layers of society, for any reason, I do apologize as it was certainly not what I mean.

 

In fact, my entire argument in favor of abortion at any time rests (not solely, but in large part) on my case of a foetus being a parasite of the female body, as well as a part of the female body, and not a separate entity, unlike people who need societies help to survive. Therefore, in my opinion, the 'sanctity of life' argument cannot be applied to foetuses (or really infants in any stage of gestation), and the mother should have the right to manage her own body and make decisions about her own body as she sees fit.

 

I should note that any anti-abortion argument runs into trouble when you bring DIC to the table. The DIC stands for doctrine of informed consent, (I'm sure you've all heard that in one way or another on medical drama shows), and what it means is that the patient is absolutely, 100% in charge of themselves. Basically, the patients makes all the decisions regarding treatment. For instance:

 

If there are two treatment options, A and B, and the doctor recommends treatment A, he is still obligated to inform the patient about the existence of treatment B. At this point, if the patient opts for treatment B, the doctor must administer treatment B to the patient, and he is not allowed to administer treatment A (in any way, for instance sneakily), even if the doctor would have been objectively right to go with treatment A.

 

Basically: the patient is always in charge.

 

Now if you say that a woman is not allowed to abort a foetus, then it flies against the face of completely being in charge of your own body, and creates a rather uncomfortable grey zone. At least, following my argument of the foetus being a part of the woman's body, and not a separate entity.

[Syco21]

You can't just arbitrarily pick and choose which definitions you wish to apply and ignore the inconvenient ones. Truth of the matter is, by the very definition of the word, anyone on welfare or the like is a parasite.

 

But that doesn't change the fact they're still people. The argument that an unborn child isn't an independent person is also bunk, because many people living on welfare or through the generosity of others is a dependent, just as much as that unborn child. Like I have stated, without my care and the care of my family, my grandmother would have died. Because she didn't have insurance nor the money to pay for hospital care. Hospitals wouldn't have taken her, they would have sent her back out to die. I can say this with 100% certainty, because that's exactly what they did. Even if there was universal healthcare, she would have still been living off the money of other people that the government has taken and appropriated for her healthcare.

 

She was not an independent person. She was dependent on me and the rest of my family.

 

As for the argument that it's the woman's body and she should be free to do with it as she pleases, this is also bunk. As I have stated time and time again, I support early term abortions. There is also contraceptives available that can be used by a woman before, during or after sex. If she wishes not to be pregnant, she has about 5 months to make that decision. If she refuses to decide upto that point, then that is her own damn problem.

 

A woman, under my ideals, would not lose control over her body. All that would happen is that she would be expected to be responsible, and failing that she would be expected to live with the consequences.

 

She has total control over her body. But there comes a time in a pregnancy when it isn't just her body. Trying to apply the parasite label to a fetus is simply trying to justify the unjustifiable.

[WarRatsG]

Dutch, I agree completely with your definition of a parasite, but there is a small contradiction in your arguement. You say that a patient has complete control over their body and that the foetus comes under that due to it not being a separate entity - by your definition of a parasite, the foetus is a separate entity, since a parasite feeds on another organism (a separate organism) from which it derives nutrients, causes detriment, etc. Therefore, it's not just her own body the patient is controlling. I agree with the rest though. A person has a right to have kids, but have the responsibility to ensure that the child gets a good life. If they cant do that, the parent should be able to prevent it.

 

Syco, the people that you describe are not parasites - that label is just a metaphor. For example, a muscular person is a bear, a fast car is a beast, etc. These are not accurate labels in the strict definition but they convey certain characteristics very well.

Cant do proper quotes on my phone, but you also said

"if she refuses to decide then it's her own god damn problem"

It's about to be a kid's problem too. If the parent cant decide or hasn't realised she's pregnant after 5 months, it doesn't bode well. But we cant just assume that abortions after 5 months are because of indecision - there may be a change of circumstances. What if she was reliant on a husband who leaves her and she can't provide for herself, let alone a child?

 

I am not labelling any person, group or social classification to be "parasites", or anything else for that matter.

Edited November 2, 2012 by WarRatsG

[Ghogiel]

 

Syco, the people that you describe are not parasites - that label is just a metaphor. For example, a muscular person is a bear, a fast car is a beast, etc. These are not accurate labels in the strict definition but they convey certain characteristics very well.

 

syco is imo correct in the use of the word, by definition, sure it's meant to be used as a snide remark. It's not a metaphor at all. The etymology of the word really puts it into the context of people using welfare to feed themselves.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/parasite?q=parasite

Edited November 2, 2012 by Ghogiel

[AVDutch]

You can't just arbitrarily pick and choose which definitions you wish to apply and ignore the inconvenient ones. Truth of the matter is, by the very definition of the word, anyone on welfare or the like is a parasite.

 

But that doesn't change the fact they're still people. The argument that an unborn child isn't an independent person is also bunk, because many people living on welfare or through the generosity of others is a dependent, just as much as that unborn child. Like I have stated, without my care and the care of my family, my grandmother would have died. Because she didn't have insurance nor the money to pay for hospital care. Hospitals wouldn't have taken her, they would have sent her back out to die. I can say this with 100% certainty, because that's exactly what they did. Even if there was universal healthcare, she would have still been living off the money of other people that the government has taken and appropriated for her healthcare.

 

She was not an independent person. She was dependent on me and the rest of my family.

 

As for the argument that it's the woman's body and she should be free to do with it as she pleases, this is also bunk. As I have stated time and time again, I support early term abortions. There is also contraceptives available that can be used by a woman before, during or after sex. If she wishes not to be pregnant, she has about 5 months to make that decision. If she refuses to decide upto that point, then that is her own damn problem.

 

A woman, under my ideals, would not lose control over her body. All that would happen is that she would be expected to be responsible, and failing that she would be expected to live with the consequences.

 

She has total control over her body. But there comes a time in a pregnancy when it isn't just her body. Trying to apply the parasite label to a fetus is simply trying to justify the unjustifiable.

 

I see this is still an issue, so I'll repeat and try to clarify myself one more time.

 

The difference, between what you're calling a parasite, and what I'm calling a parasite, is that you are using the second definition of the two (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/parasite?q=parasite for the link) but I have repeatedly explained that I am labeling the parasite as a biological organism. I.e. the first definition.

 

I have repeatedly stressed that I am calling the foetus a biological parasite. I.e. the first definition. The second definition is completely separate from that, and it means something else entirely. Yes, there are words with multiple definitions (as in the case of a parasite) but that doesn't mean that you can simply say 'you used parasite, therefore you are clearly referring to the second definition - lets call those social parasites - and not biological parasites, even though I have repeatedly stressed that this is simply NOT the case.

 

I am not arbitrarily picking and choosing meanings and applying convenient ones. I am simply pointing out that I am using the first definition of the word. You are debunking my entire argument by saying 'but what about the second definition', which is irrelevant in this case. It is a completely separate meaning of the word, and I am not using the word in that meaning. You can also not simply say 'but the word also refers to social parasites therefore you are wrong' because that argument works both ways, and if your logic would hold up, it would mean that not only is any biological parasite also a social parasite, but also any social parasite is also a biological parasite.

 

This is clearly not the case, therefore your logic in bringing social parasites into my argument is flawed.

 

Furthermore, if you say that a woman's body is no longer her own body, then you are flying squarely in the face of current medical practices. An entirely different issue altogether, but if you declare that someone is no longer the primary (indeed, ONLY) decision maker regarding their own body, you run into a multitude of problems.

 

Furthermore, your analogy with caring for your grandmother is also flawed, because no-one actually forced you to care for her. You were not legally obligated to care for her. Why, then, should a woman be legally obligated to carry a foetus until child birth, when that foetus is simply part of her body, and not a separate (no-one used the word independent but you) being? It acts like a parasite, but if you don't like that word, label it an organ. (Although the parasite argument is much easier in my opinion).

 

Also, you are saying 'well... if she doesn't have an abortion in time, that's her own damn fault'. Now there are several problems with this:

 

Firstly, you are forcing medical (key word here is MEDICAL) decisions onto someone. Something that should simply not happen under the current system of informed consent.

 

Secondly, you are forcing someone into a position - quite possibly for the rest of her life - that she might not want to be in. Why should anyone but the woman carrying the child be allowed to choose for her? The interests of the woman always, ALWAYS, trump the interests of the unborn child.

Edited November 2, 2012 by AVDutch

[mizdarby]

Although the clinical definition of 'biological parasite', might be technically correct from a purely scientific viewpoint, it has no such meaning in the non-scientific world, and as a mother of a lovely two year old, at no point did I feel 'infested' by a parasite at any time during my pregnancy. More relevantly to the question of ending human life, I fully accept that for the first part of a pregnancy, a foetus is not yet a human life, the main debate would be at what number of weeks in a pregnancy does a foetus become a child. I chose not to pick a set number of weeks, has it is debatable when the tipping point between foetus and child actually occurs.

On the other end of the human life-span, I think it is acceptable for a person to have their life ended by the medical profession, if it is the unforced choice of the individual, and there is good medical reasons for ending the life, based on quality of life to be expected.

[JimboUK]

Not if the patient has not made a clear expression of wish and it is a case of the medical staff deciding arbitrarily. One of the recent cases in the UK where the family are taking action involved a young mother who was terminally ill but in no immediate likelihood of dying. Not until the medical staff, without any consultation, withdrew treatment, feeding and fluids. I trust that the charge will be manslaughter at the very least.

 

Some news on that front http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227089/Victory-care-pathway-families-Minister-pledges-new-law-patients-end-life-regime-consulting-relatives.html lets hope it stops medical staff killing their pateints.

[Nintii]

More relevantly to the question of ending human life, I fully accept that for the first part of a pregnancy, a foetus is not yet a human life ...

 

Hmmm, well if I were to say to you, "Look Mizdarby that person's heart stopped beating an hour ago", you would agree

with me that that person (whomever they might be), was now a dead person, correct ?

 

In the words of Monte Python ... Mr. Praline It's not pinin'! It's passed on! This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be!

It's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, It rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd

be pushing up the daisies! It's metabolic processes are now history! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket,

it's shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!

 

Yes indeed, when your ticker stops ticking you're dead.

 

Well now in the words of a Doctor who performed the first ever blood transfusion to an unborn baby he has described

the embryo at the end of the first month from fertilisation as follows:

 

"By 30 days, just two weeks past mother's first missed period, the baby - one quarter of an inch

long - has a brain of unmistakable human proportions, eyes, ears, mouth, kidneys, liver, an umbilical cord and a

heart pumping blood he has made himself."

 

This is a person and to cause their heart to stop beating is to take their life ... you see they have life and now you

remove their life from them and they DIE ... they're dead, finished, the spark within them has been put out.

Tell me (not to you specifically but in general), do you think any less of a female lioness that's pregnant, or a dolphin

or some other animal ?

If someone were to try and injure the creature would you not be upset because they might harm the baby whatever

it was inside the mother's womb.

Of course you would, because the poor animal cant speak for itself and we hate people hurting animals right ?

So how about the human species ?

 

No, we're expendable because of the world we live in and the complete lack of morality that prevails.

We have justified the murder of our own kind by creating NEW definitions of when a person is and is not a person.

A spade is a spade, and murder is murder, I'm not going to candy coat this.

At very least, an adult on their last legs so to speak, has a choice.

 

I recently read a story of a group of British soldeirs captured by the Japanese during the Second World War ...

a Japanese officer began ranting and raving at the prisoners telling them how ungrateful they were to the Emperor

as he had allowed them to continue living their pathetic lives ... how could they steal a shovel ... whom the

officer thought they gave to the Thai's (they were in Thailand).

He began aiming his rifle at the prisoners threatening to kill them all.

A Scots Highlander stepped forward and said that he did it, the Japanese officer proceeded to scream at him and

beat him to death cracking open his skull with his rifle and then continued beating him even though it was clear that

the prisoner was dead.

Later on when the other prisoners recounted the shovels they discovered that NONE of the shovels were missing.

The officer had made a mistake.

The Highlander had given his life to protect his fellow prisoners.

 

You might find this story irrelevant, yet one of the things it says to me is this ... he made the choice to give his life ... Babies can't.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Nintii

[Brittainy]

I think an adult is entitled to end their own life for any reason at any time. Even if they are perfectly healthy. What you do with your own life is entirely your business. And, if you could get a doctor to offer a more peaceful death than many of the forms of suicide available, I say let it be done.

 

As for my personal definition of 'life', it's fairly simple: If you able to function and survive without assistance (either life support or the physical support of another human being) you are 'alive'.

 

If you're reliant on machines in a hospital, you're no longer 'alive'. If someone chooses to maintain you in that state until you recover, that is up to them, but I don't believe there is any obligation for care at that point. If no one wants to care for you, then I think they are entitled to pull the plug.

 

Same applies to those who are disabled. I don't believe they are owed care. It's merely a choice someone might make to help them.

 

The only time care is 'owed' is if you choose to subscribe to and support a 'society'. (Which obviously includes healthcare, etc.) If you are on a machine beyond what your support to society has covered, it's time for the plug to be pulled.

 

When it comes to babies, while they are in the womb - and therefore reliant on an existing 'host' - they are not 'alive' nor do they have any rights. The host has all the rights, including the right to kill the parasite / baby / fetus / person. Call it whatever you want. Even if it is a fully thinking, functioning, feeling human being, I'd still say the host has full rights. Nothing that relies on MY body for survival has more (or even equal) rights.

 

For me, life is absolutely tied to independence / ability.

 

Personally, I'd extend the right of the host to eliminate the parasite / baby even after the birth up to a year or so old. But that's just me.

 

My definition of life is mostly about being 'able'. If you cannot survive in basic ways on your own and are reliant on someone (or a machine), you are not 'alive'.

 

So, to go by my own rules, if I become unable to care for myself, I have no right to expect someone else to care for me - except for the healthcare provided within the society I actively engage in and support. If I choose to no longer support said society, I have no right to expect any help whatsoever.

 

I realise my ideas will probably go down like a ton of bricks with a lot of people, but to each his own.

 

As long as I am prepared to apply the rules mercilessly to myself, I think it's fair enough. Most people love to set down stringent guidelines but rarely seem to actually apply them to themselves.

 

I am essentially the type who believes in - shall we say - the survival of the able-bodied and the mentally functional. I wouldn't actively cull the useless, but I certainly wouldn't support them beyond public healthcare, which is a perk I like for myself and which I see as the primary benefit for everybody of society. Aside from that universal safety net, they will get no help from me and I will expect no help in return.

 

No rights for parasites.