Poll: Do you support capital punishment?

[Phred]

I'll be back in the morning to pick this up again. All right, you got me.;)

[HRAAB]

The road I'm leading down is really NOT just about abortion, but about the entire concept of human life --from conception to death-- and our reactions as individuals to other individuals. capital punishment is just one issue in that theme.

 

I have the feeling I shouldn't get involved in this conversation, but since this question - human life, beginning to end - is one that I'm pondering, I keep coming back to read. Maybe it will help me clarify some questions that I'm struggling with.

 

I'm pro-life: opposed to abortion, opposed to the death penalty, opposed to euthanasia, opposed to the Iraq war, not opposed to living wills, in favor of education, and means for people to have access to health care, immigration reform.... I could go on. Pro-life, for me, does not equal just being anti-abortion.

 

So human life, the different stages of human life. Do we treat all stages equally? From blastocyst to old age? I had this question posed to me: if you had an opportunity to save lives from a fire, what would you grab? The blastocyst (when does it become an embryo? after being implanted?) or the baby/toddler. Well, that wasn't a hard one for me. I would grab the baby. The other human life isn't viable at that point. So I'm not treating all human life equally. As much as most older people would want you to save the child rather than them. Well, I like to think most people would...

 

I believe human life starts at conception because all the potential is there. But I realize I put different value on human life based on the stage. I really didn't like writing that. I value the unborn child, I value the elderly person. But nonetheless choices are made.

 

Yet in the question above that I was asked, it's not the same as a pregnant mother seeking an abortion because I see the life as the unborn child as viable although totally dependent on the mother.

 

And then I question what my stand is on embryonic stem cell research.

 

And I will likely talk myself into a circle, so I will stop. I am gaining much from reading your thoughts, Peek and Phred.

 

Oh, another thought just popped up. For the Christian, does it make a difference when you believe the soul is present?

 

This could go on forever.

 

Janet

[Phred]

All right Peek, let's start here.

 

What is a human being? To me a human being is that person that begins with the first breath. A person that actively participates in their existence.

 

I do not believe that conception is a reasonable point for a human being to be recognized. For one, conception is not medically recognized as the point where life begins, that's implantation. Two, around half of all conceived eggs are naturally aborted. Conception is just where the egg and sperm come together. It doesn't mean that the resulting zygote will become anything.

 

Should the zygote implant, it then will continue to develop. Through the blastocyst stage, to embryo, to fetus. Brain activity won't begin until after 20 weeks based on the following article:

"Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks."

 

Since I also believe that cessation of brain activity signals death, it would make sense that the beginning of brain activity would signal the beginnings of life. But does that make the person a human being? I'm not so sure. It cannot, in any way, participate in its own existence. Take it out of the womb and it will die. That makes the fetus sort of a pre-human being. It could one day be a human being. But it is not one at 26 weeks. It is human, it is not a human being. It is alive only as a part of an organism, the mother/fetus. Yes, it has individual DNA, but it cannot survive as anything but a part of this organism. It's not a parasite, since the parasite invades the host from outside. But... I ramble...

 

When the fetus can survive outside the womb and participate in its own existence, then it is a human being. Medical advances are going to further blur this line so that we'll eventually have fetuses outside the womb who are not yet human beings. Eventually I wouldn't be surprised to see the entire life cycle of a human carried on outside the womb. But, to me, a human being still won't exist until they are actively participating in their own existence.

 

And, as a logical conclusion to all this, when our brains cease to function, our lives end. Even though our bodies may be kept alive by machines... our lives are over. We are no longer human beings.

[Ms. Riding Hood]

I have the feeling I shouldn't get involved in this conversation, but since this question - human life, beginning to end - is one that I'm pondering, I keep coming back to read. Maybe it will help me clarify some questions that I'm struggling with.

 

I appreciate your post very much because I think it exemplifies the very best of what this forum can offer: a place to genuinely question difficult subject matter. I’m so glad you posted!

 

So human life, the different stages of human life. Do we treat all stages equally? From blastocyst to old age? I had this question posed to me: if you had an opportunity to save lives from a fire, what would you grab? The blastocyst (when does it become an embryo? after being implanted?) or the baby/toddler. Well, that wasn't a hard one for me. I would grab the baby. The other human life isn't viable at that point. So I'm not treating all human life equally. As much as most older people would want you to save the child rather than them. Well, I like to think most people would...

 

I believe human life starts at conception because all the potential is there. But I realize I put different value on human life based on the stage. I really didn't like writing that. I value the unborn child, I value the elderly person. But nonetheless choices are made.

 

Your example of the fire is good food for thought. If my disabled grandma was on one side of the house, and my infant on the other, who would I save from the fire? I'm guessing I'd go for the baby. But there is an infinite difference between choosing to save the life of one over the other and intending to kill either through abortion or euthanasia. I'm not sure if choosing to save the baby from the fire is a matter of valuing one life more than another, but maybe it is. Doctors in front-line war situations would have a similar choice to make: which of these injured do I try to save? I'm sure that it's a choice that many people have to make even more commonly than war--I just don't know of them offhand.

 

 

Yet in the question above that I was asked, it's not the same as a pregnant mother seeking an abortion because I see the life as the unborn child as viable although totally dependent on the mother.

 

I'm not sure I exactly followed what you were trying to say here. You see that saving one over the other is *not* the same as abortion? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

 

And then I question what my stand is on embryonic stem cell research.

 

For me, the only consistent view is that life begins at conception. So that rules out any embryonic research as a violation against life. How do you define the beginning of life?

 

 

For the Christian, does it make a difference when you believe the soul is present?

I believe that both life and the soul co-exist from the moment of conception. Do others believe that a soul is imparted at some later date?

 

Janet, thank you again for your post! I applaud you for "thinking out loud".

[Phred]

I believe that both life and the soul co-exist from the moment of conception.

I wonder then Lynne, how do you explain twins? The zygote is conceived, and only later does it split. Does the soul split too? Does a new soul enter the body of one of the twins? How would that work?

[Spy Car]

But, to me, a human being still won't exist until they are actively participating in their own existence.

 

 

I'm somewhat puzzled by the meaning of the phrase "actively participating in their own existence". Could you elaborate?

 

Bill

[GraceinMD]

I'm somewhat puzzled by the meaning of the phrase "actively participating in their own existence". Could you elaborate?

 

 

I'm wondering, too. I appreciate that you seem to be wrestling with this a little. A phrase like "actively participating...." seems to just beg for responses of, "But what about ...?" and, "What about ...?"

 

I do think (again, as in the Other Thread) that it comes down to what one's determination about what are "ethically-relevant characteristics."

 

Peter Singer's determination is that a being must have:

*consciousness

*capacity for physical, social, and mental interactions

*having a conscious preference for continued life

*having enjoyable experiences

*having relationships to others (either directly, or in the sense that the "others" might be impacted if the being is dead)

 

If one agrees with those characteristics, it seems (to me, at least) impossible to find any common ground with those who (for example) believe (based on whatever - the Bible, tea leaves, grandma told me - whatever) that life begins at conception (or shortly thereafter).

 

But that would imply that this whole thread was useless :001_smile: , so I won't imply that!

 

But please do clarify, if you could, what that phrase means to you.

Thanks!

[GraceinMD]

Peter Singer's determination is that a being must have

 

 

And, in an effort to wrestle this back to the OP, I am now wondering what Peter Singer, whose world would allow infanticide, believes about capital punishment....

 

Does anyone know? (I have no time to research right this minute, but it may shed some light ... somewhere.)

[Ms. Riding Hood]

I wonder then Lynne, how do you explain twins? The zygote is conceived, and only later does it split. Does the soul split too? Does a new soul enter the body of one of the twins? How would that work?

 

I have no idea how this works. I'm sure there are theologians or better educated people than I who may have an answer. And there is a good chance that my original reply (to Janet) is not correct in terms of my (Catholic) beliefs. Perhaps I should look it up, so as to leave no confusion.

 

More to the point, however, is that you are not sincerely interested in my answers, nor any other answers presented here. I don't see that you have contributed anything to the discussion other than rather mindless jabs here and there. I've responded to you, directly, plenty of times but you have never directly answered anything yet put to you. In fact, you haven't even answered indirectly. You talk in circles. I would call it circular reasoning, but there really isn't any reasoning involved.

 

And for a person who has no belief in God, you are apparently strangely obsessed with inserting yourself in all conversations dealing with Him. But I begin to repeat myself....

 

Besides, what has the idea of the soul to do with the idea of abortion or anything else in the OP? Janet posed a question, which I honestly answered as far as I know to be correct. That's my only real interest in the question.

 

 

Edit--Upon further consideration, I must say that I'm rethinking you, Phred. Since you are interested the the God subject, you may take some consolation in this: if nothing else, you have added given me impetus for much needed increase in prayer and deeper examination of my own beliefs. For this, I thank you very much. And I mean this most sincerely.

[Phred]

I'm somewhat puzzled by the meaning of the phrase "actively participating in their own existence". Could you elaborate?

 

Bill

 

Well, Singer says:

 

*consciousness

*capacity for physical, social, and mental interactions

*having a conscious preference for continued life

*having enjoyable experiences

*having relationships to others (either directly, or in the sense that the "others" might be impacted if the being is dead)

 

But I never liked that much. According to Terri Schiavo's parents she fit all these categories and according to her husband none. Her parents had a videotape (skillfully edited) that showed her reacting to a balloon. But she had no brain, no possibility of being able to do any of these things. Her husband was right. And yet... and yet... *others* were impacted that she died. That's why I said simply participating in your own existence. Not just having a conscious preference for continued life but doing something, anything to show that is so. After all, how can we know that someone has a conscious preference unless they show us?

 

A baby cries because it is hungry. We can go around and around about whether that's a conscious preference or an ingrained response and at what age that becomes which but either way the infant is participating in its continued existence.

 

Stephen Hawking can move one finger but he uses that one finger to let people know he wants to continue to be. And to flip some people off, but that's another story.

 

When you're hooked up to machines and they breathe for you but you're glad they do it for you... that's one thing... but when your brain activity has ceased and the machines are keeping a body functioning but you're no longer there... that's when you're not a human being any longer. You're not actively participating in your own existence, machines are doing it all for you.

 

Sometimes, not often, but sometimes, children are born without a brain at all. They have skulls filled with spinal fluid. They will never gain consciousness because there is no brain to do so. At best, if they are born via C-section (by the way, this is the reason the D&X procedure, better known as partial birth abortion was originally performed) they will "live" for a couple of hours. Their heads are abnormally large, sometimes as large as a basketball. These extreme cases of hydroencephalus are not and never will be able to participate in their own existence.

 

As we go thru life, happy, sad whatever the emotion... the thing is we HAVE emotions. We are participants in our lives. Mere existence is so far away for most of us that we don't consider it... for those of us that do... well, sometimes life slaps us right in the face. But where ever you are in regards to knowing about existence if you're reading this board you have a computer, you aren't doing too badly. Your level of participation in existence is rich, full of emotion and experience and thought and far from survival.

 

But some of us have older parents or grandparents and we're exposed to nursing homes. If it isn't our loved ones directly we see the toll that modern medicine can take. People are "alive" but they have checked out. They're fed, by nurses... diapers changed, because they can't use the toilet any longer... pill popped to keep them docile... they don't know where they are or in many cases who they are. What are they doing to participate in their existence? If left alone they'd starve. They breathe on their own. But what sort of life do they have? They're more like stuffed animals the family feels they have to go and see on mother's day (not many men make it to this point) and sometime around Christmas. But again I ask, how are they participating in their existence?

 

My thoughts went to one of those African refugee camps where the people have almost nothing to eat. Young, previously vigorous people who are now shells of their former selves because of war, dictator and genocide. My father is 91 years young. He still drives although I don't see that happening much longer. It kills me that he's getting older... seems so much quicker lately... but more than anything I don't want to see him turn into one of these wheelchair ghosts. Because as often as he's said, "Don't let me end up like that!" I don't know that I'm strong enough to let him go.

 

Still... I just don't think human beings should be kept like that. Unable to participate in their own existence.

 

Does that help clarify it a little?

[Phred]

I have no idea how this works. I'm sure there are theologians or better educated people than I who may have an answer. And there is a good chance that my original reply (to Janet) is not correct in terms of my (Catholic) beliefs. Perhaps I should look it up, so as to leave no confusion.

 

More to the point, however, is that you are not sincerely interested in my answers, nor any other answers presented here. I don't see that you have contributed anything to the discussion other than rather mindless jabs here and there. I've responded to you, directly, plenty of times but you have never directly answered anything yet put to you. In fact, you haven't even answered indirectly. You talk in circles. I would call it circular reasoning, but there really isn't any reasoning involved.

 

And for a person who has no belief in God, you are apparently strangely obsessed with inserting yourself in all conversations dealing with Him.

 

Besides, what has the idea of the soul to do with the idea of abortion or anything else in the OP? Janet posed a question, which I honestly answered as far as I know to be correct. That's my only real interest in the question.

"Your honor, permission to treat the witness as hostile?" :D

 

Your belief is very important to the point. You believe what you do based upon a soul. And, I believe, many others do too. Both at birth and at death much is based upon the concept of a soul. Conception is the time you believe a soul enters the body so you believe life begins at conception. Death is something that is attributable to your belief in a soul as well. When the body is lying there on the table hooked up to machines if the heart is beating is the soul still resident? Even if the brain no longer functions? I believe that much of our society's actions towards life and death is wrapped up in the concept of the "soul".

 

I guess it really doesn't matter how you explain twins. My point is that there is no clear explanation. There's so much riding on this intangible belief where a soul enters the body at conception and whoops, the body splits in two. So does the soul split in two? It can't. So does one of the twins just get a new soul? If it does, then whats to say a soul can't just pop in anytime? And doesn't that just mess with the whole "life begins at conception" concept?

 

But if you do have the time I'd be very interested to know what the Catholic church does have to say...

[HRAAB]

But there is an infinite difference between choosing to save the life of one over the other and intending to kill either through abortion or euthanasia.

 

Absolutely.

 

I'm not sure if choosing to save the baby from the fire is a matter of valuing one life more than another, but maybe it is. Doctors in front-line war situations would have a similar choice to make: which of these injured do I try to save? I'm sure that it's a choice that many people have to make even more commonly than war--I just don't know of them offhand.

 

Again, I agree. Many times people have had to make choices. I'm thinking now that the word 'value' wasn't what I meant, but I'm not coming up with another one right now. You're saving a life, you only have so much time, you pick the one most likely to survive; that doesn't mean you didn't value the other life.

 

I wrote:

 

"Yet in the question above that I was asked, it's not the same as a pregnant mother seeking an abortion because I see the life as the unborn child as viable although totally dependent on the mother."

 

You responded:

 

"I'm not sure I exactly followed what you were trying to say here. You see that saving one over the other is *not* the same as abortion? I don't want to put words in your mouth."

 

In the question I was asked (by someone who is pro-choice - we were arguing) I chose to save the baby and not save a blastocyst in a test tube. That stage of human development is not viable unless it is implanted. When a woman chooses an abortion, the life is viable. So I don't equate abortion - deliberate termination of a life - with leaving a blastocyst on the shelf to burn. The embryo will grow and develop into a human.

 

For me, the only consistent view is that life begins at conception. So that rules out any embryonic research as a violation against life. How do you define the beginning of life?

 

I've always held that life begins at conception. But in the case of the embryo in a test tube, it's not viable in that it won't grow or develop.

 

I believe that both life and the soul co-exist from the moment of conception. Do others believe that a soul is imparted at some later date?

 

My aunt, a very devout Anglican, believed that a human didn't have a soul until birth; thus she believed abortion should be an option.

 

Janet, thank you again for your post! I applaud you for "thinking out loud".

 

So all that thinking aloud was that abortion ends a viable human life albeit totally dependent on the mother. But the embryos sitting on the shelf ... that's where I was thinking out loud.

 

I want to say again: I am opposed to abortion. I wouldn't want anyone to think I support abortion, I don't.

 

Janet

[HRAAB]

I have no idea how this works. I'm sure there are theologians or better educated people than I who may have an answer. And there is a good chance that my original reply (to Janet) is not correct in terms of my (Catholic) beliefs. Perhaps I should look it up, so as to leave no confusion.

 

I asked the question about the soul because of my aunt's beliefs. I thought perhaps not all Christians believed the same.

 

I looked in Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 366, and found:

 

"The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection."

 

I remember reading one time that the Church did not definitely teach when the soul entered the body, but it was some time ago and it was not authoritative - just the musings of some theologian. I need to do some more research.

 

I have hijacked this thread and apologize. I've been in the process of deconstructing and trying to reconstructing my faith for some time and have not had anyone IRL to discuss it with. I'm trying to work through all these thoughts and took advantage of this discussion since it was on a subject with which I've been wrestling. I don't want to say "I believe because the Bible says so, or the Church says so..." If it's true, I should see evidence for it in the natural world.

 

Anyway, so you know why I got off on such a tangent. Back to the original conversation. I will read with interest what you, Peek, Phred and others have to say.

 

Janet

[Spy Car]

Does that help clarify it a little?

 

Only to a point. I "fully" understand the notion that a person whose brain has ceased to function (or ceases to exist) can be said to "not participating in their own existence".

 

But are you saying a 90 year-old who can't get to the the toilet is in the same boat? I assume not, right?

 

And as a "practical" matter I'm not sure how this "standard" is useful in determining when a developing human has crossed "the threshold" of being a participation in their own existence. I'm still at a loss in understanding what exactly is required to meet the condition.

 

Bill

[starlashine]

 

I guess it really doesn't matter how you explain twins. My point is that there is no clear explanation. There's so much riding on this intangible belief where a soul enters the body at conception and whoops, the body splits in two. So does the soul split in two? It can't. So does one of the twins just get a new soul? If it does, then whats to say a soul can't just pop in anytime? And doesn't that just mess with the whole "life begins at conception" concept?

 

 

 

A very good response overall, but I had particularly never thought about this argument. Thank you.

[Ms. Riding Hood]

I looked in Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 366, and found:

 

"The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection."

 

I did the same. :) But I didn't think it answered Phred's question.

 

I have hijacked this thread and apologize.

 

Are you kidding? This thread went south a long time ago! :lol:

 

I've been in the process of deconstructing and trying to reconstructing my faith for some time and have not had anyone IRL to discuss it with. I'm trying to work through all these thoughts and took advantage of this discussion since it was on a subject with which I've been wrestling. I don't want to say "I believe because the Bible says so, or the Church says so..." If it's true, I should see evidence for it in the natural world.

 

That's admirable. I've been through a very similar process myself. We can "talk" anytime, if you'd like. Sometimes an IRL friend can be great, but sometimes it's easier to talk with someone not so immediate, kwim? Anyway, the offer stands.

[Phred]

Only to a point. I "fully" understand the notion that a person whose brain has ceased to function (or ceases to exist) can be said to "not participating in their own existence".

 

But are you saying a 90 year-old who can't get to the the toilet is in the same boat? I assume not, right?

 

And as a "practical" matter I'm not sure how this "standard" is useful in determining when a developing human has crossed "the threshold" of being a participation in their own existence. I'm still at a loss in understanding what exactly is required to meet the condition.

 

Bill

Why don't we get very practical?

 

• Terri Schiavo - DNM criteria.
  
• Stephen Hawking - meets criteria
  
• zygote, blastocyst, embryo - DNM criteria
  
• fetus - oh the big fuzzy area. Has brain function at 26 weeks. With modern medical technology can be delivered and born and will belong to the next category. Sometimes. So... for me anyway 24 weeks, third trimester, is when the fetus would belong to the next category.
  
• infant - meets criteria
  
• child, adult - meets criteria
  
• brain dead person - DNM criteria
  
• Advanced Altzheimers patient - ?

Got any other cases that you can think of?

[Phred]

I asked the question about the soul because of my aunt's beliefs. I thought perhaps not all Christians believed the same.

 

I looked in Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 366, and found:

 

"The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection."

 

I remember reading one time that the Church did not definitely teach when the soul entered the body, but it was some time ago and it was not authoritative - just the musings of some theologian. I need to do some more research.

 

I have hijacked this thread and apologize. I've been in the process of deconstructing and trying to reconstructing my faith for some time and have not had anyone IRL to discuss it with. I'm trying to work through all these thoughts and took advantage of this discussion since it was on a subject with which I've been wrestling. I don't want to say "I believe because the Bible says so, or the Church says so..." If it's true, I should see evidence for it in the natural world.

 

Anyway, so you know why I got off on such a tangent. Back to the original conversation. I will read with interest what you, Peek, Phred and others have to say.

 

Janet

I agree with Lynne, this thread went for a long walk and got lost so don't worry about hijacking it.

 

I'm very interested in one thing you said above. "If it's true, I should see evidence for it in the natural world." What do you mean?

[Spy Car]

Why don't we get very practical?

• Terri Schiavo - DNM criteria.

• Stephen Hawking - meets criteria

• zygote, blastocyst, embryo - DNM criteria

• fetus - oh the big fuzzy area. Has brain function at 26 weeks. With modern medical technology can be delivered and born and will belong to the next category. Sometimes. So... for me anyway 24 weeks, third trimester, is when the fetus would belong to the next category.

• infant - meets criteria

• child, adult - meets criteria

• brain dead person - DNM criteria

• Advanced Altzheimers patient - ?

Got any other cases that you can think of?

 

Well it was the "fuzzy" area of the fetus, and instances such as the Advanced Alzheimers patient that had me wondering. The latter I notice is left "in question". So here, are we to assume it's not *if* there is "brain function" but whether the quality of the brain function and cognition skills are up to certain standards that tips the scales?

 

As to the fetus, I wasn't completely sure where you stood here. I thought I read earlier (but may be mistaken) that you said life began with "first breath". If that is correct, perhaps you extended that to mean the "potential" for first breath (as in viability?).

 

Assuming the fetus remains "in utero", and is of "normal" status in terms of brain development and activity, is said fetus a "participant in its own existence" at around 24-26 weeks while it is still in the womb?

 

Bill

[Ms. Riding Hood]

"Your honor, permission to treat the witness as hostile?" :D

 

okay, so I laughed at that one

 

"Your belief is very important to the point. You believe what you do based upon a soul.

 

Do I? Hmm. I don't recall saying that, and I'm not sure that it's true. Janet brought up the soul, I said it's there at conception, you asked about twins.... That's how the conversation went. So you presume that you understand my beliefs, and even go so far as to reject them outright, when really you don't know anything about what I believe.

 

I believe that people are different than animals. I believe that to be human means more than to have opposable thumbs and higher level reasoning skills. I believe that civilization cannot rightly be called that when people can rationalize disposing of human life at any stage of development or regression. If we can do that, then we are no longer human--at least according to my definition.

 

If you are right, Phred, that there is no God, then the only prayer (tounge-in-cheek) that mankind has, and specifically that our civilization has, is a profound respect for the dignity of human life. Period. Protecting the unborn is not a Christian issue, it is a human issue.

 

"But if you do have the time I'd be very interested to know what the Catholic church does have to say...

So maybe I lied before. I'd really like to know the answer to this too. But tomorrow is the 4th and I have guests coming to stay the week. So don't expect any profound answers very quickly.

[Phred]

Well it was the "fuzzy" area of the fetus, and instances such as the Advanced Alzheimers patient that had me wondering. The latter I notice is left "in question". So here, are we to assume it's not *if* there is "brain function" but whether the quality of the brain function and cognition skills are up to a certain standards that tips the scales?

I'd have to say yes. Terri Schiavo had her "lizard brain" intact. Her medula oblongata was still there, but all it does is control autonomic functions. What makes us human isn't that we breathe but that we are conscious of it. But I'm very conscious myself of the distinction between things "human" and a "human being". I'm also trying not to run to Google here... but yes, there is a certain level of function that qualifies as human being. And it's pretty low, nobody has to take any tests. :D

 

 

As to the fetus, I wasn't completely sure where you stood here. I thought I read earlier (but may be mistaken) that you said life began with "first breath". If that is correct, perhaps you extended that to mean the "potential" for first breath (as in viability?).

Well, as we talked I modified that somewhat. At first my thoughts were and mostly still are that a baby isn't a baby until it's born. However, to be consistent, if brain activity ... or the lack of it means death, then surely brain activity means life. So at 26 weeks we begin to see full brain activity across the central cortex. That fetus is beginning to be a human being. If delivered at that time it would most likely simply be a baby. So there can be no quibbling... in or out it's a baby who would fully participate in its existence.

 

Assuming the fetus remains "in utero", and is of "normal" status in terms of brain development and activity, is said fetus a "participant in its own existence" at around 26 week while it is in the womb?

Well... no. But it's kind of a special case. Given that if you delivered that fetus it WOULD do so can we consider it anything other?

[Phred]

okay, so I laughed at that one

Good... humor is so hard to convey when typing.

 

Hmm. I don't recall saying that, and I'm not sure that it's true. Janet brought up the soul, I said it's there at conception, you asked about twins.... That's how the conversation went. So you presume that you understand my beliefs, and even go so far as to reject them outright, when really you don't know anything about what I believe.

Let me apologize. I'm not trying to state what you believe. I'm just saying that I think that your believing in the point of conception as the beginning of life is based upon your belief in a soul. It just makes sense. When else would it happen? However, as we're learning, conception happens over a long period of time, perhaps as much as thirty-six hours. So when exactly might the soul enter? It seems to me that a soul could enter at any time or it could grow with the person.

 

I believe that people are different than animals. I believe that to be human means more than to have opposable thumbs and higher level reasoning skills.

I understand. To be a human being to me doesn't mean you have to be special in a magic way, just in an intelligent way. Knowing we know things is the key. Examining what we know is the magic.

 

I believe that civilization cannot rightly be called that when people can rationalize disposing of human life at any stage of development or regression. If we can do that, then we are no longer human--at least according to my definition.

And yet, we rationalize the keeping of weapons in our homes. We build prisons that are not for rehabilitation but are for punishment. We declare wars on drugs and poverty instead of trying to understand why people use them in the first place. We see genocides taking place in other countries and only intervene if the politics of the dictators carrying out the genocides are adverse to US policy. Nevermind the people. Civilization should mean that we, as people, are learning to live together and live together better. Instead... don't you sometimes feel as if we're busy learning to hide from each other? But, imagine that... I ramble again.

 

If you are right, Phred, that there is no God, then the only prayer (tounge-in-cheek) that mankind has, and specifically that our civilization has, is a profound respect for the dignity of human life. Period. Protecting the unborn is not a Christian issue, it is a human issue.

I wonder if you're not right.

 

 

So maybe I lied before. I'd really like to know the answer to this too. But tomorrow is the 4th and I have guests coming to stay the week. So don't expect any profound answers very quickly.

I hear ya... I'm about to get slapped silly for being on the computer all day.

 

Have a great weekend.

[GraceinMD]

Why don't we get very practical?

 

Got any other cases that you can think of?

 

Well, sure. What about:

 

*the 38 yr old male with a mental age of about 18 months?

Now, an 18-month-old, in your scheme, would I see, meet criteria for being a participant in his own existence, but what of an adult with mental retardation who lacks self-awareness? At what point (age?) should he be "cut off?"

 

*the 25 yr old schizophrenic who is not capable of caring for herself due to her disordered perceptions of reality?

This person, say, can't interact in any meaningful way with those around her, and may, in moments of psychosis, need direct care (e.g., toileting, dressing, feeding). Should she be culled?

.

*can't communicate?

*can't walk?

*the unemployed 54-yr-old alcoholic?

 

I think this is the slippery slope that we tend to make fun of, and why many don't think it should be up to society to decide. Several have said that we shouldn't kill one prisoner because of the chance that he or she might be innocent - but that's what the *other* side is saying about life - that they don't want to take a chance by killing the early and late "forms" (embryo/fetus <---> patient with advanced dementia).

 

I suppose (musing out loud) that voting "yes" for capital punishment (see, always trying to yank it back to the OP!) IS, in fact, making a similar determination - not about being a participant in one's existence, but saying, in effect, "You chose poorly; so poorly, in fact, that you gave up your chance to participate."

[Spy Car]

I'd have to say yes. Terri Schiavo had her "lizard brain" intact. Her medula oblongata was still there, but all it does is control autonomic functions. What makes us human isn't that we breathe but that we are conscious of it. But I'm very conscious myself of the distinction between things "human" and a "human being". I'm also trying not to run to Google here... but yes, there is a certain level of function that qualifies as human being. And it's pretty low, nobody has to take any tests. :D

 

As a person who admires your intelligence, and appreciates your presence here as in interlocutor, my humble suggestion is phrases such as "lizard brain" are unnecessarily harsh and rather disrespectful to a person's humanity. I certainly would not like seeing a brain-dead loved one described in such terms.

 

Moving on from that. There does seem to be a wide gulf between non-cognition/brain-death and experiencing some degree of dementia or being unable to fully care for oneself. Your equation seems troubling vague here.

 

 

Well, as we talked I modified that somewhat. At first my thoughts were and mostly still are that a baby isn't a baby until it's born. However, to be consistent, if brain activity ... or the lack of it means death, then surely brain activity means life. So at 26 weeks we begin to see full brain activity across the central cortex. That fetus is beginning to be a human being. If delivered at that time it would most likely simply be a baby. So there can be no quibbling... in or out it's a baby who would fully participate in its existence.

 

Well... no. But it's kind of a special case. Given that if you delivered that fetus it WOULD do so can we consider it anything other?

 

You are confusing me. You seem to be saying in or out a fetus of a certain development does qualify. But then there is a conditional *would* statement. So are you saying the fetus (at roughly 24-26 weeks) is not a participant in its own existence, but *could be* were it delivered?

 

If we accepted the above, wouldn't that require that the standard to be "modified" to something along the lines of "having the potential to fully participate in its existence"? Because said fetus wouldn't yet be a full participant?

 

Or are you saying that the fetus *is* a participant even in utero? Sorry to keep pressing the point, but I'm simply not clear where you stand.

 

Also, I'm perplexed at how a 26 week old fetus that is still in utero qualifies as a "special case"? Isn't this the usual case?

 

Bill

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

As a person who admires your intelligence, and appreciates your presence here as in interlocutor, my humble suggestion is phrases such as "lizard brain" are unnecessarily harsh and rather disrespectful to a person's humanity. I certainly would not like seeing a brain-dead loved one described in such terms.

 

 

Actually, Bill, he's talking about a particular portion of the brain often called the "reptilian brain." Sometimes people refer to it as the lizard brain, but it's not meant to be in the least a slur. It's the part that's left as a rudimentary, survival-only (breathing, flinching from pain, heartbeat, etc -- and I may have this part wrong) portion of the brain.

 

A link, maybe, if it works. And maybe another?

[Phred]

Well, sure. What about:

 

*the 38 yr old male with a mental age of about 18 months?

Now, an 18-month-old, in your scheme, would I see, meet criteria for being a participant in his own existence, but what of an adult with mental retardation who lacks self-awareness? At what point (age?) should he be "cut off?"

He participates in his own existence.

 

*the 25 yr old schizophrenic who is not capable of caring for herself due to her disordered perceptions of reality?

This person, say, can't interact in any meaningful way with those around her, and may, in moments of psychosis, need direct care (e.g., toileting, dressing, feeding). Should she be culled?

This person participates in their own existence.

.

*can't communicate?

*can't walk?

*the unemployed 54-yr-old alcoholic?

All participate in their own existence.

 

I think this is the slippery slope that we tend to make fun of, and why many don't think it should be up to society to decide. Several have said that we shouldn't kill one prisoner because of the chance that he or she might be innocent - but that's what the *other* side is saying about life - that they don't want to take a chance by killing the early and late "forms" (embryo/fetus <---> patient with advanced dementia).

Well, yes and no... it all depends upon who's saying what.

 

I suppose (musing out loud) that voting "yes" for capital punishment (see, always trying to yank it back to the OP!) IS, in fact, making a similar determination - not about being a participant in one's existence, but saying, in effect, "You chose poorly; so poorly, in fact, that you gave up your chance to participate."

Thank you. In the minds of many I believe this is the difference. The killer is not innocent. They are guilty. The fetus is *innocent* as is the brain dead body. Not the killer. You're absolutely right.

[Spy Car]

Actually, Bill, he's talking about a particular portion of the brain often called the "reptilian brain." Sometimes people refer to it as the lizard brain, but it's not meant to be in the least a slur. It's the part that's left as a rudimentary, survival-only (breathing, flinching from pain, heartbeat, etc -- and I may have this part wrong) portion of the brain.

 

A link, maybe, if it works. And maybe another?

 

Oh! :001_huh::lol:

 

Phred I offer my sincere apologies.

 

Thanks for point that out Pam :001_smile:

 

Bill (who momentarily feels like a dope...but will recover)

[Phred]

As a person who admires your intelligence, and appreciates your presence here as in interlocutor, my humble suggestion is phrases such as "lizard brain" are unnecessarily harsh and rather disrespectful to a person's humanity. I certainly would not like seeing a brain-dead loved one described in such terms.

That's actually the common term for it. We all have within us a part of our brain that very closely resembles the brain of a lizard. It has a deep evolutionary history that goes all the way back to ... well, lizards. That is the part that was still alive in Terri. It's not derogatory but descriptive. And thank you for the compliment.

 

Moving on from that. There does seem to be a wide gulf between non-cognition/brain-death and experiencing some degree of dementia or being unable to fully care for oneself. Your equation seems troubling vague here.

Well, it's as close as I can get it without starting an entire line of research... suffice to say that there comes a point where a patient no longer can feed themselves, relieve themselves, where they don't know anyone or where they are and they live in a state of fear because every time they wake up it's in a strange place. Their minds are not functional at all. It's not a question of "what use are they?" because I don't think we should ever ask that. It's a question of "how do they participate in existence?" And I'm not suggested we just start rolling wheelchairs of the top of nursing homes. What I'm saying is that we start looking at our lives differently. When I think of some of the patients I've seen come and go in the room next to my mother... they've been dead long before their bodies died. The things people told them for several years before they died were not heard. So while it must've felt good to the people saying those things... of what use was it to the patient? They weren't there. At some point they mentally checked out. So when are we going to admit that and let them go to hospice care instead of dragging out their body's existence in nursing homes?

 

 

You are confusing me. You seem to be saying in or out a fetus of a certain development does qualify. But then there is a conditional *would* statement. So are you saying the fetus (at roughly 24-26 weeks) is not a participant in its own existence, but *could be* were it delivered?

Yeah... confusing, isn't it?

 

If we accepted the above, wouldn't that require that the standard to be "modified" to something along the lines of "having the potential to fully participate in its existence"? Because said fetus wouldn't yet be a full participant?

mmmm... yes, you might be right. But then that opens the door to the fetus that could participate next week. And so on. I'll have to think about this some more. Maybe Singer's ideas need some more looking at.

 

Or are you saying that the fetus *is* a participant even in utero? Sorry to keep pressing the point, but I'm simply not clear where you stand.

No, of that I'm certain. There is no participation from within the mom.

[HRAAB]

Trying to clarify in my own mind. Your position is that the fetus is human at 26 weeks because of brain activity, but not a human being. At birth, then it is a human being because it is then participating in its own existence?

 

Thanks,

Janet

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

Bill (who momentarily feels like a dope...but will recover)

 

Ah, well, now you're officially one of us. :D

[Phred]

Trying to clarify in my own mind. Your position is that the fetus is human at 26 weeks because of brain activity, but not a human being. At birth, then it is a human being because it is then participating in its own existence?

 

Thanks,

Janet

I don't believe it is a human being because it isn't separate from the mother at this point. Although it can be. Which makes the question murky.

[HRAAB]

I agree with Lynne, this thread went for a long walk and got lost so don't worry about hijacking it.

 

I'm very interested in one thing you said above. "If it's true, I should see evidence for it in the natural world." What do you mean?

 

Well, that's just me. I need to see evidence for what I believe. There have been some statements made here along these lines: the Bible says so, God said it, Christianity teaches, etc. If God is all truth, then that truth should be evident in the world He created. If a Christian is trying to convince a non-Christian or atheist of a Christian belief, saying 'God instituted it or commanded it' probably isn't going to hold water. There should be evidence they can offer in their defense.

 

In the past I've been known to say such things:blushing:. However, since entering my agnostic stage, where everything has been up for examination, I look for evidence that is satisfactory - to me, anyway. My 'believer' half is trying to convince my 'agnostic' half. However, my evidence would never satisfy you, I'm fairly sure. ;)

 

Janet

[Peek a Boo]

For the Christian, does it make a difference when you believe the soul is present?

 

To this Christian, when a soul is imparted is irrelevant in how we treat life. Medically speaking, there is no way to prove the existence of a soul. So i am not going to try to assert an arbitrary time :) I think we CAN, however, deal pretty empirically w/ the issue of whether something is alive, and whether something is human.

 

 

What is a human being? To me a human being is that person that begins with the first breath. A person that actively participates in their existence.

 

 

Two things:

 

1. the phrase "human being" is a philosophical term, not a scientific one. I can accept [but not agree with ;) ...] your definition from a philosophical POV, but you need to be aware that the scientific community does not recognize a "human being" --they recognize whether something is human, and whether it is alive. I would have to say your idea of "human being" is as logical as one's view of a god or soul --neither are on scientific ground.

 

 

2. "actively participates in their existence" will send us on quite a goose chase. You know that, right? :) I'll have to address that part a bit more later.

 

I do not believe that conception is a reasonable point for a human being to be recognized. For one, conception is not medically recognized as the point where life begins, that's implantation. Two, around half of all conceived eggs are naturally aborted. Conception is just where the egg and sperm come together. It doesn't mean that the resulting zygote will become anything.

 

Should the zygote implant, it then will continue to develop. Through the blastocyst stage, to embryo, to fetus.

 

For one: actually, that's incorrect. The moment of conception is about two specific living cells becoming one unique organism. Scientifically speaking, life hasn't "begun" because it never ended. Medically speaking, it is alive, and it is human. Implantation is just another stage in the development. A critical one, yes. But "just" another stage. The stage an organism goes through doesn't change what that organism IS on a molecular level.

 

and don't be afraid to google :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stages_of_human_development

 

Two: What happens to the organism in the future doesn't change what it is NOW: a developing human. Scientists don't define something based on what may or may not happen to it: they define it by what is observed at the time. Conception is an observable phenomenon that shows an explicit change of "just" sperm and egg into something different.

 

or if we use your logic... since spontaneous abortions are drastically reduced once an embryo enters the fetal stage, should that matter in how we perceive its humanness?

 

 

Since I also believe that cessation of brain activity signals death, it would make sense that the beginning of brain activity would signal the beginnings of life. But does that make the person a human being? I'm not so sure. It cannot, in any way, participate in its own existence. Take it out of the womb and it will die. That makes the fetus sort of a pre-human being. It could one day be a human being. But it is not one at 26 weeks. It is human, it is not a human being. It is alive only as a part of an organism, the mother/fetus. Yes, it has individual DNA, but it cannot survive as anything but a part of this organism.

-----

When the fetus can survive outside the womb and participate in its own existence, then it is a human being. Medical advances are going to further blur this line so that we'll eventually have fetuses outside the womb who are not yet human beings. Eventually I wouldn't be surprised to see the entire life cycle of a human carried on outside the womb. But, to me, a human being still won't exist until they are actively participating in their own existence.

 

If breathing and crying for food = "participate in its own existence" then 26 weekers do that when they are born. They will probably survive --as most other babies-- if you remove them from their mother's womb [and I agree w/you about advances in medical technology making removal from the womb less risky]. The in utero human is basically "trapped" in the womb, like a child in a carseat. In a previous discussion, I think it was Mama Lynx that discussed the "net value" of harm vs good: The harm to the mother is USUALLY negligible compared to the "good' of the continuing in utero development of the human. The good outweighs the risk.

 

In utero, developing humans do quite a bit --they breathe amniotic fluid, exercise their limbs, and can see and hear. But yes, the mother as host is the life support system for the in utero human --so that takes us back to how life support plays a part in this discussion. Anyway, "purposeful movements" aren't completely developed until well after birth. Fine motor skills and gross motor skills take YEARS to develop.

 

If you take a toddler and leave it in the woods, it will [likely] die because it cannot fully participate in its own existence.

 

 

It's not a parasite, since the parasite invades the host from outside. But... I ramble...

 

actually, it DID invade its host from the outside --the sperm had to be delivered to the inside-- women don't become spontaneously pregnant [even Mary depended on the Holy Spirit ;) ] But the biggest point is that a parasite doesn't really have to invade from the outside --parasites can develop [reproduce] internally, like hookworms. Pregnancy is often analogous to a parasitic state [altho that is terribly un-PC and not very "considerate" lol]: there are things pregnant moms need to do to make sure their bodies are not subject to "harm" from this "parasite." "Harm" being subjective here --some gals handle pregnancy almost too well. Others die from complications.

 

And, as a logical conclusion to all this, when our brains cease to function, our lives end. Even though our bodies may be kept alive by machines... our lives are over. We are no longer human beings.

 

except time of death is not medically- scientifically- recognized by brain waves. "Brain death" is a legal term that the scientific community allows for legal purposes --not scientific ones over whether someone is alive.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death

 

"Note that brain electrical activity can stop completely, or drop to such a low level as to be undetectable with most equipment."

 

That some patients may be "scared" everytime they wake up is simply not scientifically supportable. We literally do NOT know how much a person may be thinking or feeling, even if they can't physically participate in their own existence.

 

more by clicking on "clinical death" at the bottom....

"Clinical death is now seen as a medical condition that precedes death rather than actually being dead."

 

the topic of when something is D-E-D is almost more difficult than whether it is alive ;)

[Peek a Boo]

I think this is the slippery slope that we tend to make fun of, and why many don't think it should be up to society to decide. Several have said that we shouldn't kill one prisoner because of the chance that he or she might be innocent - but that's what the *other* side is saying about life - that they don't want to take a chance by killing the early and late "forms" (embryo/fetus <---> patient with advanced dementia).

 

I suppose (musing out loud) that voting "yes" for capital punishment (see, always trying to yank it back to the OP!) IS, in fact, making a similar determination - not about being a participant in one's existence, but saying, in effect, "You chose poorly; so poorly, in fact, that you gave up your chance to participate."

 

i think this is an excellent statement, and your second paragraph offers some good explanation.

[Peek a Boo]

**AHEM**

 

I'd like to take this opportunity to give the participants of this thread a 3-day break for the holidays. Your absence will be noticeable, but excused. Anyone who participates during the 4th, 5th, or 6th receives Teacher's Pet designation and brownies.

 

See ya Monday ;)

 

Have a good weekend :)

[Ms. Riding Hood]

Janet,

 

You might try Aquinas and the Summa Theologica if you are interested in this. Very complex & deep, but it sounds like what you're asking for. At any rate, it's interesting reading if you can do it.

[Ms. Riding Hood]

I want to say again: I am opposed to abortion. I wouldn't want anyone to think I support abortion, I don't.

 

I thought that came through in your OP...I just wasn't quite sure what you were getting at in the middle. ;) Thanks for clarifying.

[Phred]

 

**For the purposes of this post, forget about abortion.**

 

 

 

I think that Peek is right. The term "human being" is not exactly what I mean to say. The term "person" is what I wish to say. When do we as humans, human beings, become a person, an individual?

 

Again, I refer to our standard for the recognition of the end of life. When a person ceases to have higher brain function that person is considered dead and we bury them six feet under ground without hesitation. I'm going to use the same criteria to determine when a gestating human becomes a viable person. When those brain waves start to show higher brain function the fetus is a person. When that brain function stops, a person ceases to be even though their bodies may be kept alive by machines or by other medical procedures.

 

So a person exists as a function of their brain. Without the brain there is no person there. "Person" is the word I meant to use and define. Person. That's important.

 

 

**back to our regularly scheduled programming... remember abortion again**

 

 

 

Ok, why is it important? It's important because a "person" is granted rights. When a fetus becomes a person it is granted certain "inalienable rights"... including the right to live. Previously that only happened when a child was born. But, abortion really isn't about the fetus and its rights. It's about a woman and her rights vs. a fetus and its rights and whether or not it has them. Far too often we get caught up in the argument about personhood and the other associated debates when they might not be relevant. If a woman chooses not to be pregnant she (might) very well have that choice. As of today under our laws she does have that choice. A choice, I might add, that Christianity used to allow. Early Christians believed that male fetuses were ensouled at about 40 days after conception, females at 90 days. Thus, Christians allowed abortions up to 90 days into pregnancy. Somehow that changed, don't ask me how.

 

Anyway, then we come to the end of life. If there is no brain activity present but the body is still being kept alive by machines... in my opinion it is dead. If a person is faced with a terminal illness and wants to end the life (such as Dr. Kevorkian was helping with) I see no reason a person can't have that option as a treatment. But with the help of a hospital instead of having to go find a nutball like Dr. Death. Oregon agrees people should have that option.

 

As to people who have lost all function and simply do not think at all anymore... I'm not sure. To remain consistent they are as functional as the fetus that I've just argued is a person.

 

And lastly, capital punishment. Thoughout this we've talked about innocent vs. guilty. But does that matter? Let's assume the person is guilty. Should we as a society join together and kill someone? As an overall society we're supposed to show a greater ability to judge than an individual interested in vengeance. Overall I'm still against capital punishment but I'm confused about what to do with those who have committed crimes that insist we remove them from our society. Somehow, becoming infamous celebrities while sitting in their cells doesn't seem to be appropriate. Charles Manson comes to mind.

 

So, to sum up.

 

Captial punishment - no.

Right to choose - Yes, up to a point, see below... it's a question of competing rights.

Person - while you have higher brain function.

Right to die - yes, you should have the choice to get help

euthanasia - not sure

[Peek a Boo]

I think that Peek is right.

well of course! ;)

 

The term "human being" is not exactly what I mean to say. The term "person" is what I wish to say. When do we as humans, human beings, become a person, an individual?

 

 

Person: which has been a legal definition, and one that has changed over the years. We are now entering the world of legal rights vs science :D

 

 

Again, I refer to our standard for the recognition of the end of life. When a person ceases to have higher brain function that person is considered dead and we bury them six feet under ground without hesitation. I'm going to use the same criteria to determine when a gestating human becomes a viable person. When those brain waves start to show higher brain function the fetus is a person. When that brain function stops, a person ceases to be even though their bodies may be kept alive by machines or by other medical procedures.

 

So a person exists as a function of their brain. Without the brain there is no person there.

 

our standard Legally speaking.....

 

"Person" is the word I meant to use and define. Person. That's important.

 

 

I absolutely agree with you on that. The question becomes whether we define a "person" by arbitrary and changing legal definitions or by scientific ones --where evidence tends to be more empirical.

 

Ok, why is it important? It's important because a "person" is granted rights. When a fetus becomes a person it is granted certain "inalienable rights"... including the right to live.

---

But, abortion really isn't about the fetus and its rights. It's about a woman and her rights vs. a fetus and its rights and whether or not it has them. Far too often we get caught up in the argument about personhood and the other associated debates when they might not be relevant.

 

BINGO :)

 

Even if we were to rule that a human is a person at ANY stage of development, you still have to deal w/ how one exercises rights over another. We currently accept the use of lethal force as justified in dire circumstances. the question then becomes about proportional use of force against another person-- your rights to do as you please are limited by another's rights to live.

This is where the Ayn Rand Objectivists and I part ways.

 

don't forget that even as a person rights are still limited: children and the mentally incapable do not have the right to enter into contracts, etc. So being a "person" does not automatically grant one rights that trump all ;)

 

 

 

As to people who have lost all function and simply do not think at all anymore... I'm not sure.

 

 

What someone wishes to do to themselves is beyond my capabilities to argue empirically. I do think that any time you bring in a second person it opens the door for lethal mistakes.

 

The problem i have w/ the above statement is the "at all" -- we simply don't know that.

 

 

 

And lastly, capital punishment. Throughout this we've talked about innocent vs. guilty. But does that matter? Let's assume the person is guilty. Should we as a society join together and kill someone? As an overall society we're supposed to show a greater ability to judge than an individual interested in vengeance. Overall I'm still against capital punishment but I'm confused about what to do with those who have committed crimes that insist we remove them from our society.

 

I think I like Grace's explanation best: you lose your rights when [in short] you deprive another of them. Honestly, I would vote for solitary confinement and no media rather than traditional cells....... But even w/ our miserable system now I still have to side w/ the right to live vs the right to have punishment carried out My Way.

 

So, to sum up..... for me :)

 

Capital punishment - no.

Right to choose - No... even competing rights are limited in use of lethal force.

Person - science vs legal: a developing, alive human.

Right to die - yes, but can't implicate anyone else in that decision

euthanasia - no

 

QUESTION: when is the use of lethal force justified --for individuals [end of life/self-defense/ abortion], and for society [capital punishment/ war]?

 

Maybe we should start a thread about lethal force?

 

 

{{{i can't beLIEVE we are still kinda on track w/ capital punishment!!! is that a record or something?? high fives all around, lol}}}

[GraceinMD]

I think that Peek is right.

 

Captial punishment - no.

Right to choose - Yes, up to a point, see below... it's a question of competing rights.

Person - while you have higher brain function.

Right to die - yes, you should have the choice to get help

euthanasia - not sure

 

Capital punishment - no.

Right to choose - No... even competing rights are limited in use of lethal force.

Person - science vs legal: a developing, alive human.

Right to die - yes, but can't implicate anyone else in that decision

euthanasia - no

 

 

May I just say, "Wow." I applaud you both for perservering, and actually being a lot closer in opinions than I would have expected!

 

When a person ceases to have higher brain function that person is considered dead and we bury them six feet under ground without hesitation.

 

Actually, that's not true, at least medically. That is, when I pronounce someone dead, I don't test their "higher brain functions." I look for spontaneous respirations, heart beat, and response to noxious stimuli (all lower brain functions). Maybe that's not exactly what you meant, but if I used higher brain function criteria, well, yes, I'd have no advanced dementia patients to care for. Now, you may well believe that those with no higher brain function are, in fact, "dead," but that isn't an accepted medical POV. (As an aside, an isoelectric ('flatline') EEG can not necessarily be equated with brain death (although this situation is a rarity) - but that's a whole 'nother can o' worms.)

 

When those brain waves start to show higher brain function the fetus is a person. When that brain function stops, a person ceases to be even though their bodies may be kept alive by machines or by other medical procedures.

Again, and this may be a quibble - but higher brain functions include:

 

reasoning, planning, parts of speech, movement, emotions, and problem solving , movement, orientation, recognition, perception of stimuli, visual processing, perception and recognition of auditory stimuli, memory, and speech.

 

Maybe you mean brainstem function? That, of course, starts pretty early on in utero.

 

But, abortion really isn't about the fetus and its rights. It's about a woman and her rights vs. a fetus and its rights and whether or not it has them. Far too often we get caught up in the argument about personhood and the other associated debates when they might not be relevant.

 

Anyway, then we come to the end of life. If there is no brain activity present but the body is still being kept alive by machines... in my opinion it is dead.

 

As to people who have lost all function and simply do not think at all anymore... I'm not sure. To remain consistent they are as functional as the fetus that I've just argued is a person.

 

 

 

Even if we were to rule that a human is a person at ANY stage of development, you still have to deal w/ how one exercises rights over another. We currently accept the use of lethal force as justified in dire circumstances. the question then becomes about proportional use of force against another person-- your rights to do as you please are limited by another's rights to live.

 

don't forget that even as a person rights are still limited: children and the mentally incapable do not have the right to enter into contracts, etc. So being a "person" does not automatically grant one rights that trump all ;)

 

 

 

When I talk to the medical POA (medical power of attorney) for a patient with dementia about end-of-life care, I always make sure to emphasize that the POA is not to tell me what he or she would want, but what the PATIENT (usually their parent) would want. It seems that this might be an instructive way to look at the issue of abortion. The mother, as proxy for the fetus, could be considered obligated to decide what the fetus would want, not what SHE (the mother) would want. It's not always easy to do for an elderly parent, and it's not easy to do for an unborn person. (I am specifying person, because I'm using Phred's definition - a being with brain waves. Hope I'm following his train of thought.) Anyway, it seems that it would be hard to presume that a fetus - the unborn person with brain waves (this is torture, isn't it?!:))- would choose against life. (As Peek said, "I do think that any time you bring in a second person it opens the door for lethal mistakes." I would say that it's a terrible responsibility to be able to decide on someone else's life, but I think we're saying the same thing.)

 

In other words, why shouldn't we presume in favor of life when we don't really know?

 

And, just to clarify, I do NOT mean "trying to keep someone alive at all costs" or on any available machine. I don't recall ever recommending a feeding tube in a patient with advanced dementia, I try really hard to treat my patients with dementia in the nursing home or assisted living (not in the hospital), etc. However, I don't euthanize them (and don't kid yourselves - it happens all over the country - not just in Oregon), because I would rather err on the side of life - even if that life seems to me to be quite impoverished (functionally).

 

(I think this was my 200th post, and I was hoping it (what is it about round numbers?!) would be about something relatively substantive; this post may be gibberish, but the topic is interesting! I also must say that I'm wobbling a bit about my initial vote about capital punishment... I need to do more thinking and reading, but Phred, I appreciate your comment about trying to remain consistent.)

[Phred]

May I just say, "Wow." I applaud you both for perservering, and actually being a lot closer in opinions than I would have expected!

Yeah, but we might just beat each other with sticks over those little differences! :lol:

 

Actually, that's not true, at least medically. That is, when I pronounce someone dead, I don't test their "higher brain functions." I look for spontaneous respirations, heart beat, and response to noxious stimuli (all lower brain functions). Maybe that's not exactly what you meant, but if I used higher brain function criteria, well, yes, I'd have no advanced dementia patients to care for. Now, you may well believe that those with no higher brain function are, in fact, "dead," but that isn't an accepted medical POV. (As an aside, an isoelectric ('flatline') EEG can not necessarily be equated with brain death (although this situation is a rarity) - but that's a whole 'nother can o' worms.)

I'm so glad you're here. What I was thinking of is someone that might have been in a car accident, they've been resuscitated to a point but there's a head injury. Now you're thinking organ donation. What has to happen to get you thinking organ donation?

 

Again, and this may be a quibble - but higher brain functions include:

 

reasoning, planning, parts of speech, movement, emotions, and problem solving , movement, orientation, recognition, perception of stimuli, visual processing, perception and recognition of auditory stimuli, memory, and speech.

 

Maybe you mean brainstem function? That, of course, starts pretty early on in utero.

No, I mean cross-cortex activity, the cerebrum is working, it's just not programmed yet... not brainstem function... that starts really early in utero. We'll get to that part of our programming when we start to discuss euthanasia.

 

When I talk to the medical POA (medical power of attorney) for a patient with dementia about end-of-life care, I always make sure to emphasize that the POA is not to tell me what he or she would want, but what the PATIENT (usually their parent) would want. It seems that this might be an instructive way to look at the issue of abortion. The mother, as proxy for the fetus, could be considered obligated to decide what the fetus would want, not what SHE (the mother) would want. It's not always easy to do for an elderly parent, and it's not easy to do for an unborn person. (I am specifying person, because I'm using Phred's definition - a being with brain waves. Hope I'm following his train of thought.) Anyway, it seems that it would be hard to presume that a fetus - the unborn person with brain waves (this is torture, isn't it?!:))- would choose against life.

Then you get to deformed children, seriously ill kids who will not live longer than an hour or two... how would they choose as they'll never really know? Or worse, the kids who will live but be paralyzed all their lives. Will the mother choose what she thinks the child would choose if she were the child?

 

(As Peek said, "I do think that any time you bring in a second person it opens the door for lethal mistakes." I would say that it's a terrible responsibility to be able to decide on someone else's life, but I think we're saying the same thing.)

 

In other words, why shouldn't we presume in favor of life when we don't really know?

 

And, just to clarify, I do NOT mean "trying to keep someone alive at all costs" or on any available machine. I don't recall ever recommending a feeding tube in a patient with advanced dementia, I try really hard to treat my patients with dementia in the nursing home or assisted living (not in the hospital), etc. However, I don't euthanize them (and don't kid yourselves - it happens all over the country - not just in Oregon), because I would rather err on the side of life - even if that life seems to me to be quite impoverished (functionally).

 

(I think this was my 200th post, and I was hoping it (what is it about round numbers?!) would be about something relatively substantive; this post may be gibberish, but the topic is interesting! I also must say that I'm wobbling a bit about my initial vote about capital punishment... I need to do more thinking and reading, but Phred, I appreciate your comment about trying to remain consistent.)

Hardly gibberish. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your thoughts and experiences.

 

Ummm... isn't not recommending a feeding tube the same thing as I'm talking about?

[Phred]

To this Christian, when a soul is imparted is irrelevant in how we treat life. Medically speaking, there is no way to prove the existence of a soul. So i am not going to try to assert an arbitrary time :) I think we CAN, however, deal pretty empirically w/ the issue of whether something is alive, and whether something is human.

Hardly. There is even argument about whether a sperm and egg are alive as they can't reproduce themselves.

 

1. the phrase "human being" is a philosophical term, not a scientific one. I can accept [but not agree with ;) ...] your definition from a philosophical POV, but you need to be aware that the scientific community does not recognize a "human being" --they recognize whether something is human, and whether it is alive. I would have to say your idea of "human being" is as logical as one's view of a god or soul --neither are on scientific ground.

Actually, they recognize an individual of the species homo sapiens sapiens. A fetus is not an individual until it can live on its own. Separate from the physical being of its mother. The term "individual" is recognized scientifically.

 

2. "actively participates in their existence" will send us on quite a goose chase. You know that, right? :) I'll have to address that part a bit more later.

That's just me trying to figure this all out.

 

For one: actually, that's incorrect. The moment of conception is about two specific living cells becoming one unique organism. Scientifically speaking, life hasn't "begun" because it never ended. Medically speaking, it is alive, and it is human. Implantation is just another stage in the development. A critical one, yes. But "just" another stage. The stage an organism goes through doesn't change what that organism IS on a molecular level.

Make up your mind. Either it's one unique organism that's begun or it's the same old organism continuing. You can't have it both ways. When the sperm and the egg come together they create a new organism with new DNA that is different from that of either parent. That means there's a point at which this new organism was not alive and a point at which it is. That point is blurry, it takes about 36 hours we now understand. But then, "poof!" There's a new organism. Is it alive? Yes. But it hasn't implanted in the womb yet. Without that it will not develop into anything. Medically that's the point that is recognized as a pregnancy beginning, not conception. On a molecular level the DNA did change. This organism began. Will it continue? That depends upon a lot of things.

 

and don't be afraid to google :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stages_of_human_development

 

Two: What happens to the organism in the future doesn't change what it is NOW: a developing human. Scientists don't define something based on what may or may not happen to it: they define it by what is observed at the time. Conception is an observable phenomenon that shows an explicit change of "just" sperm and egg into something different.

Yup. Not a person.

 

or if we use your logic... since spontaneous abortions are drastically reduced once an embryo enters the fetal stage, should that matter in how we perceive its humanness?

It's human, it's not a person. Spontaneous abortions are an argument against gods, not humanness.

 

If breathing and crying for food = "participate in its own existence" then 26 weekers do that when they are born. They will probably survive --as most other babies-- if you remove them from their mother's womb [and I agree w/you about advances in medical technology making removal from the womb less risky]. The in utero human is basically "trapped" in the womb, like a child in a carseat. In a previous discussion, I think it was Mama Lynx that discussed the "net value" of harm vs good: The harm to the mother is USUALLY negligible compared to the "good' of the continuing in utero development of the human. The good outweighs the risk

But that's not up to us to decide. For all the screaming about government intervention on this board there seems to be no fear at all about having the government intervene to prevent a woman from doing what she wants with her own body. But what we're arguing about is pretty much negligible. I'm gonna have to go get statistics now but the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. I'm in no hurry to let a woman kill a baby. Even one she doesn't want herself. But I'm also not in a hurry to force her to remain pregnant.

 

In utero, developing humans do quite a bit --they breathe amniotic fluid, exercise their limbs, and can see and hear. But yes, the mother as host is the life support system for the in utero human --so that takes us back to how life support plays a part in this discussion. Anyway, "purposeful movements" aren't completely developed until well after birth. Fine motor skills and gross motor skills take YEARS to develop.

 

If you take a toddler and leave it in the woods, it will [likely] die because it cannot fully participate in its own existence.

No, it does. My toddler would scream, fuss, cry... it would do what it could. Even if a toddler would not have the skills to live alone in the woods it would TRY.

 

except time of death is not medically- scientifically- recognized by brain waves. "Brain death" is a legal term that the scientific community allows for legal purposes --not scientific ones over whether someone is alive.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death

 

"Note that brain electrical activity can stop completely, or drop to such a low level as to be undetectable with most equipment."

 

That some patients may be "scared" everytime they wake up is simply not scientifically supportable. We literally do NOT know how much a person may be thinking or feeling, even if they can't physically participate in their own existence.

 

more by clicking on "clinical death" at the bottom....

"Clinical death is now seen as a medical condition that precedes death rather than actually being dead."

 

the topic of when something is D-E-D is almost more difficult than whether it is alive ;)

Let's see what Grace has to say.

[sarah in tenn]

I do not have God's abiliity to know for sure...

so I opt for being against capital punishment.

 

sarah

[StephanieZ]

if I were to support it for any crime, the rape of a child would be first on my list. (I just *don't* get that decision!)

 

Personally, I'd rather be dead myself than have my child go through that.

 

In general: Lock em up forever, yes; kill, no. It's just too raw for me.

 

That said, if, God forbid, someone messed with one of my cubs. . . I can't say what my vengeful heart would lead me to do. . . and my imagination isn't pretty. . .

 

but our justice system should be cool, calculated, measured. . . not vengeful. It just turns us all into monsters, IMHO.

[Peek a Boo]

Hardly. There is even argument about whether a sperm and egg are alive as they can't reproduce themselves.

 

um....not really:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

 

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/cellbiol/1997-January/006090.html

 

There's about as much argument over whether sperm/egg are alive as there is over the validity of the ToE ;)

 

Actually, they recognize an individual of the species homo sapiens sapiens. A fetus is not an individual until it can live on its own. Separate from the physical being of its mother. The term "individual" is recognized scientifically.

 

not really:

If they need to categorize the 4-cell organism at the beginning of its development, they would categorize it as an individual H.s.sapiens --an individual as opposed to a population of H.s.sapiens.

 

There's a difference between "viability" and scientific categorization of a species. See the bio link above --it covers that too. As long as the last surviving individual of an endangered species is pregnant, they don't consider it extinct yet.

 

But if you want to wrangle up some scientific evidence that discounts what I just said, I'll wait ;)

 

 

Make up your mind. Either it's one unique organism that's begun or it's the same old organism continuing. You can't have it both ways. When the sperm and the egg come together they create a new organism with new DNA that is different from that of either parent. That means there's a point at which this new organism was not alive and a point at which it is. That point is blurry, it takes about 36 hours we now understand. But then, "poof!" There's a new organism. Is it alive? Yes. But it hasn't implanted in the womb yet. Without that it will not develop into anything. Medically that's the point that is recognized as a pregnancy beginning, not conception. On a molecular level the DNA did change. This organism began. Will it continue? That depends upon a lot of things.

 

i don't have to make up my mind --science has already established it. back to the bio link above: it is a unique organism in a specific process. There is a point at which the two become one organism of two cells --nothing "dies" --it simply fuses. Parts of each cell degenerate, but nothing DIES --it continues to live. There's a point at which this organism was two, and a point at which it is one. The point isn't that blurry: we can observe the second it happens, and can observe the moment it STOPS. Implantation is just geography. The organism is still alive, and it is human.

eta: clarification -- we can observe the second it STARTS...etc :)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization

 

*dating* of a pregnancy is determined differently by different docs based on what information they have about the woman's body: if she's tracking her periods, they go by that. Shoot --the most common form of dating --LMP-- is from when a woman was definitely NOT pregnant, lol. [that always bugged the carp outta me....] If she was tracking her ovulation, they go by that. If she only had sex once in the last 3 months, they go by that. If they don't know any of that, they do an ultrasound which will measure gestation-- age from conception. But any [ok, most?] doc will concede that the pregnancy actually began when the egg and sperm started the fertilization process.

 

Implantation simply shows that the development hasn't hit a snag yet. Pregnancy is simply the act of carrying a developing human --a pregnancy has lots of stages and signs, according to the development of the in utero human. Again: the scientific community doesn't determine the categorization of a species by where it happens to be geographically. If an oak's acorn never develops into a tree it is still the acorn of an oak tree. They only determine the stages of development during the life cycle OF a species. back to that bio link .... or any other science link you want to investigate.

 

 

Yup. Not a person.

you are correct according to the current legal definition of "person" :)

 

 

It's human, it's not a person. Spontaneous abortions are an argument against gods, not humanness.

 

my point was that spontaneous abortions aren't "an argument" against anything --they are simply evidence of the cessation of a life form. humanness is established scientifically. Person is defined legally.

 

But that's not up to us to decide. For all the screaming about government intervention on this board there seems to be no fear at all about having the government intervene to prevent a woman from doing what she wants with her own body. But what we're arguing about is pretty much negligible. I'm gonna have to go get statistics now but the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. I'm in no hurry to let a woman kill a baby. Even one she doesn't want herself. But I'm also not in a hurry to force her to remain pregnant.

 

actually, it IS the purpose of society to decide when it is ok to usurp the rights of another --that's kinda the whole point of this thread :) .

 

What is the purpose of a society?

 

A woman can do whatever she wants w/ her own body, but she can't just go killing off in utero humans because she wants to.... w/o a legal consequence. That consequence can have a sliding scale, just like any other killing does. But it is as much the right -and duty- of society to decide whether an innocent life is killed as it is the right --and duty-- of society to decide whether a convicted life is killed. Both decisions carry consequences and responsibilities on other people -some voluntary, others involuntary.

 

and yes, the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. That we are willing to kill a human based on their stage of development is a pretty slippery slope too, but one you seem to consider as acceptable on both ends of the life cycle.

 

 

Let's see what Grace has to say.

That sounds fine to me, but as much as i have appreciated Grace's response, if she offers an opinion at extreme odds w/ the rest of the scientific community [like Karin has in the ToE thread], it will need to be handled at face value ;)

 

==================================================

That's just me trying to figure this all out.

i kinda figgered that ;)

 

No, it does. My toddler would scream, fuss, cry... it would do what it could. Even if a toddler would not have the skills to live alone in the woods it would TRY.

 

as would mine :). It might *react* to the best of its ability --as does ANY organism at various stages of development--, but now we're back to trying to define "participating fully." I'd suggest leaving that one off the table for now cuz it sounds pretty darn arbitrary, and we have quite a bit to consider as it is. That should give you some time to work through your thoughts and present a stronger argument at a later time. I can, however, see it meshed w/ your theme of what stages of life can be killed on demand.

[Phred]

um....not really:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

 

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/cellbiol/1997-January/006090.html

 

There's about as much argument over whether sperm/egg are alive as there is over the validity of the ToE ;)

 

 

 

not really:

If they need to categorize the 4-cell organism at the beginning of its development, they would categorize it as an individual H.s.sapiens --an individual as opposed to a population of H.s.sapiens.

 

There's a difference between "viability" and scientific categorization of a species. See the bio link above --it covers that too. As long as the last surviving individual of an endangered species is pregnant, they don't consider it extinct yet.

 

But if you want to wrangle up some scientific evidence that discounts what I just said, I'll wait ;)

 

 

 

 

i don't have to make up my mind --science has already established it. back to the bio link above: it is a unique organism in a specific process. There is a point at which the two become one organism of two cells --nothing "dies" --it simply fuses. Parts of each cell degenerate, but nothing DIES --it continues to live. There's a point at which this organism was two, and a point at which it is one. The point isn't that blurry: we can observe the second it happens, and can observe the moment it STOPS. Implantation is just geography. The organism is still alive, and it is human.

eta: clarification -- we can observe the second it STARTS...etc :)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization

 

*dating* of a pregnancy is determined differently by different docs based on what information they have about the woman's body: if she's tracking her periods, they go by that. Shoot --the most common form of dating --LMP-- is from when a woman was definitely NOT pregnant, lol. [that always bugged the carp outta me....] If she was tracking her ovulation, they go by that. If she only had sex once in the last 3 months, they go by that. If they don't know any of that, they do an ultrasound which will measure gestation-- age from conception. But any [ok, most?] doc will concede that the pregnancy actually began when the egg and sperm started the fertilization process.

 

Implantation simply shows that the development hasn't hit a snag yet. Pregnancy is simply the act of carrying a developing human --a pregnancy has lots of stages and signs, according to the development of the in utero human. Again: the scientific community doesn't determine the categorization of a species by where it happens to be geographically. If an oak's acorn never develops into a tree it is still the acorn of an oak tree. They only determine the stages of development during the life cycle OF a species. back to that bio link .... or any other science link you want to investigate.

 

 

 

you are correct according to the current legal definition of "person" :)

 

 

 

 

my point was that spontaneous abortions aren't "an argument" against anything --they are simply evidence of the cessation of a life form. humanness is established scientifically. Person is defined legally.

 

 

 

actually, it IS the purpose of society to decide when it is ok to usurp the rights of another --that's kinda the whole point of this thread :) .

 

What is the purpose of a society?

 

A woman can do whatever she wants w/ her own body, but she can't just go killing off in utero humans because she wants to.... w/o a legal consequence. That consequence can have a sliding scale, just like any other killing does. But it is as much the right -and duty- of society to decide whether an innocent life is killed as it is the right --and duty-- of society to decide whether a convicted life is killed. Both decisions carry consequences and responsibilities on other people -some voluntary, others involuntary.

 

and yes, the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. That we are willing to kill a human based on their stage of development is a pretty slippery slope too, but one you seem to consider as acceptable on both ends of the life cycle.

 

 

 

That sounds fine to me, but as much as i have appreciated Grace's response, if she offers an opinion at extreme odds w/ the rest of the scientific community [like Karin has in the ToE thread], it will need to be handled at face value ;)

 

==================================================

 

i kinda figgered that ;)

 

 

 

as would mine :). It might *react* to the best of its ability --as does ANY organism at various stages of development--, but now we're back to trying to define "participating fully." I'd suggest leaving that one off the table for now cuz it sounds pretty darn arbitrary, and we have quite a bit to consider as it is. That should give you some time to work through your thoughts and present a stronger argument at a later time. I can, however, see it meshed w/ your theme of what stages of life can be killed on demand.

Well then I stick with my contention of higher functioning brain means person to not higher functioning brain means dead person. However, that means if the mother wishes not to be pregnant she can seek medical help to deliver the now person after 24 weeks. It's in her body. Before 24 weeks it's still in her body and she can seek to have the pregnancy terminated.

 

What does this mean to capital punishment? It means we don't kill people.

[Trivium Academy]

I'm not 100% sure though. If sanctity of life is the issue here, then I do not support capital punishment just as I cannot support abortion. But I will admit to being confused as to what is right, morally and ethically-

 

If a person takes the life of another or damages another severely, should they be treated the same? Put to death for it? I do believe that if a man rapes a woman/child he should be castrated. Although I'm not sure how effective it would be. (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=3985832&page=1)

 

It's easy to say one way or the other as someone who doesn't have to fulfill the judgment or make the judgment of another in the first place. I've read posts about if the victim were their child ...but I don't many about what if the perp was your child. What would you want then? Is this issue led only by emotions?

 

Just talking aloud, I'm not sure about this one.

[GraceinMD]

Yeah, but we might just beat each other with sticks over those little differences! :lol:

Iron sharpens iron, right?

 

 

...in a car accident, they've been resuscitated to a point but there's a head injury. Now you're thinking organ donation. What has to happen to get you thinking organ donation?

 

Brain death criteria include coma and no:

•Motor response to painful stimuli (but spinal cord reflexes may still be present)

•Pupillary reflex (response to light and pupils at midposition with respect to dilation)

•Corneal reflexes

•Oculovestibular reflex

•Gag reflex

•Coughing in response to tracheal suctioning

•Respiratory drive at a PaCO2 of 60 mm Hg or 20 mm Hg above baseline level (in other words, if your carbon dioxide goes up a lot, you'll start to breathe -- so absence of this drive)

•Sucking and rooting reflex (in infant).

 

Although (I'm no expert), there seems to be quite a bit of controversy, and difficulty in deciding.

 

Then you get to deformed children, seriously ill kids who will not live longer than an hour or two... how would they choose as they'll never really know? Or worse, the kids who will live but be paralyzed all their lives. Will the mother choose what she thinks the child would choose if she were the child?

 

That's my point - since you can't know, I think you err on the side of life. There was a great article I read once that (of course) I can't find now - about how we use the subjunctive when talking about EOL issues: "what he would have wanted," etc. It's a low percentage discussion, because you can't know. You (one) can't even know what YOU will want in 40 yrs. Chances are you'll be incontinent and using a walker - and that is NOT acceptable NOW, but it might look pretty darn good THEN. You don't know. (As C. S. Lewis said (in The Horse and His Boy, I think), "You can never know what would have been," and, "You can never know someone else's story." Thus, it's very hard to be responsible for *deciding* someone else's story - as I said, it's a terribly difficult thing to be charged with.)

 

Ummm... isn't not recommending a feeding tube the same thing as I'm talking about?

 

I thought you were talking about physician-assisted suicide, or even euthanasia. NOT recommending a feeding tube is NOT those things, at least in my view. I suppose there are some who would believe differently ("...if you don't get nutrition in them, they'll die, and you KNOW they'll die, therefore that's the same as killing them...."), but I don't think this is supported in the literature. Well - let me rephrase: I think that the principle of primum non nocere comes into play - and feeding tubes do more harm than good (and don't do much of the good they're purported to do, at least in certain patients). But that doesn't mean I support NOT FEEDING folks - I would say a compassionate approach is to carefully hand-feed a patient at the end of their life - and at some point, they won't take food/fluid any more.

 

This didn't further the thread, really, and I don't have time to respond more now, but ... there you are! I think there were some of Peek's comments that I wanted to respond to, too, but will have to look later. And, of course, the whole issue of capital punishment is still somewhere in this thread, right?!