Pro-choice

[Akashic_Librarian]

Ok so I wanted to start a healthy debate about a persons right to choose to die if they wish (Euthanasia) and also a womens right to choose an abortion if she so desires.

I will start things off:

Euthanasia:

Your life is yours and yours alone. No body else has the right to decide whether you live or die excpet yourself, if you want Euthanasia then you should be allowed it without social prejudice or religious implications. Religion has no right to infringe upon your rights.

Abortion:
Again, its your life. You choose. That baby won't care. it won't come and get you. In fact, its probably not even conscious. If your life will be ruined by the baby. if your young. If you can't financially support it. if you smoke or drink heavily. If you party till the wee hours of the morning then you should be forced to Abort, let alone have the choice in my opinion. Its not fair on the children and it damn sure isn't fair on my tax money that has to pay for you when you could have had a fulfilling, happy life. Not one left to the servitude of an unwanted child.

[Erki]

What's the difference between euthanasia and suicide really? I always thought that the former was only done to terminally ill people and carried out by doctors. While suicide is done by the person who wants to die themselves. Not much difference...except that the latter only involves one and only one person meaning there's no "killer".

Re abortion: I just read this little blog post: Living In Silence: An Unfair Practice - remember, AL, girls are evil.

[Akashic_Librarian]

He is damned RIGHT. Men have a choice too you damned feminists!

[Matthew Shea]

Humans do not have the ability to endow themselves with life and they should not have the ability to choose to end it. Period. I feel that way about abortion, euthanasia, captial punishment and pretty much every matter of life-vs-death with the sole exception of self preservation (if your life is threatened). For example, if a pregnant woman's life is being threatened, perhaps by cancer, and the treatment will result in the death of the baby, then the mother's life has to take precendence.

Beyond that, the taking of a human life by another human is always undeniably and forever wrong.

Now, having said that, I do not approve of government interference in these matters as there may be a situation where something worse will happen as the result of a person not being able to make a life or death choice. In that case, the person should be able to pick the lesser of two evils. Government does not have the wisdom to look into the details of each individual scenario and make a proper moral decision. The citizens should be trusted, in the case of abortion and suicide, to make their own judgements. I can't abide by euthanasia, though. It seems a cowardly way out and ropes others into something (death) that cannot, of itself, ever be considered "good." Furthermore, euthanasia obligates the provider to make an informed moral decision as to the viability of the patient's life and to the potential impacts to society of taking a particular life. We're dealing with a very serious moral judgement that any person of good conscience should not force another person to make. If you really want out that bad, there are plenty of easy ways to do it without involving others. A bottle of aspirin would be plenty to end your life.

As for capital punishment, if we can keep criminals safely away from society and permanently remove the threat they caused without taking their life (which we certainly can), we have an obligation to preserve that life. At the very least, there is something to be learned from them. At best, they may be reformed and move on to try and make up for the wrongs they committed, even if they never make it out of jail.

Edit: in terms of abortion, if people used birth control appropriately, 90% + of abortions would be completely unneeded. At the very least, this makes abortion a last resort, an undesirable outcome and something that could have easily been prevented.

[Matthew Shea]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

He is damned RIGHT. Men have a choice too you damned feminists!

This makes no sense and I cannot possibly agree with it. Until men are ready to start carrying the baby in their womb for 9 months, all they can possibly do is provide input. The choice ultimately rests with the person carrying the baby. It cannot be any other way. In terms of male choice, the best we can do as a society is to give the woman the ability to permanently sign the child, once born, over to the father, allowing him to take full responsibility, financially and otherwise, to raise it.

[llong]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Abortion:
Again, its your life. You choose. That baby won't care. it won't come and get you.

This has got to be the lowest level and most selfish rationale for abortion I've ever heard.

Hint: If you kill anything, it won't come and get you.

I'm a eugenicist, and given your argument.......um, don't elect me into office if you want kids.

[Chet]

The difference between euthanasia and suicide:
euthanasia is mostly for people that waited a bit too long, they can't manage suicide without some outside help.

If your dog is suffering you will kindly take it to the vet and it will be 'put down' if the suffering can not be stopped. I don't understand why we are kinder to dogs than to people.

[openeyes]

I too hope the discussion on this thread will be able to remain civil and informative.

My family has had fairly close contact with the idea of euthanasia over the past few months. In March my dad had a major stroke that initially left him unable to move his right side: not his right leg, right arm/hand, nor the right side of his mouth. Mentally he’s still very much present, but physically for the first time since infancy he’s dependent on others. His initial feeling was that if he couldn't recover enough to be able to care for himself, he would prefer (and seek out) death. My brother and I both told him we understand, and we won’t blame him for whatever he decides to do.

I feel that once someone is beyond the point at which they can lead a life they can be satisfied with, whether because of serious physical or mental illness, it’s fine for them to choose to move on. It’s nice to have a chance to say goodbye, but no one should be forced to live longer than they wish, if there is little hope for improvement. As my dad says, he has lived a very full life, and the current way he is living is unacceptable long-term. Still, there’s a lot one can adapt to over time. How much may vary, and I try to respect each person’s choices.

No one should be cooped up in a hospital/nursing home for years on end (unless they personally want to be) surrounded by people they don’t know, people who are too busy and overworked to bring much light to them. I’m not sure what I would do in my dad’s situation. Maybe meet with everyone, say my goodbyes, and then stop eating/drinking. Within two weeks I would have peacefully passed on, taking long enough to not be making a rash decision. It may be necessary to get out of the hospital or have a living will that could prevent intravenous injections after becoming unconscious.

On the other end, I would hope that healthy infants could be given a home rather than aborted, but I try to understand each person’s situation and difficulties. I wish that people had universal access to safe birth control until they felt ready to have children. Few methods are without side effects.

[llong]

Whenever people say that others should be "put down", or that "I wouldn't want to live if I was like that", my wife, an attorney, asks "would you like to put that in writing?"

Typically ends the innane conversation.

[Chet]

Well I have a living will ... I think everybody should have one.

[coleflowers]

I'm hesitant to even reply to this thread since both topics are generally so heated that the debate seldom stays rational. But, what the hell....here is my two cents.

First euthanasia, I worked as a nurses aid for several years in a nursing home. There were so many people I encountered who were so unhappy and miserable and wanted a way out. I think that is 100% their choice whether they want to stay alive or end their own life. With modern medicine a life can be prolonged, but often quality of life is lost. I don't think it is cowardly at all to choose to die over a long and painful death. I think it is more morally wroung to keep a person alive just for the sake of being "alive".


OK-Abortion. Personally having an abortion is not something I will ever do unless medically necessary. I do however resent the fact that a bunch of middle aged white males (I know there are females, but they are the minority) passing laws about something so personal as an abortion. A white male will NEVER experience being a victim of rape, or being alone and pregnant, or being with an abusive spouse and pregnant, therefore how dare they decide for all women that abortions are wrong.

I would never be able to cope with making the decision to have an abortion. But, I will never judge a person who decides that is right for her. Adoption is noble and I think that would be the best option, but for some women they may not be able to even face going through 9 months of pregnancy. I would hope that for those who do decide to have an abortion that they will be able to have it done in a safe environment.

I do think it is morally wrong to bring a child into an environment where it will not be loved and taken care of.

As far as a man's right to have a say in an abortion-I am not sure how I feel about that. A man would not be having to make the physical commitment of having a child as far as carrying the child, birth, etc. However, there are too may men (I am not saying all men) that father children, and than do not provide for the children financially or emotionally. I wish I would see more men expressing their feelings about their rights in the decision of an abortion. It seems that is often a point that is not focused on in the abortion debate.

[Dharma]

Euthanasia:

Sure. It is your choice to die in all cases. "Natural" death, accidents, suicide, etc. It's all choice. It's also very unconscious choice.

Abortion:
Sure. Everyone involved (mom, dad, future child) has to be in agreement or else it does not happen. Again, most of this is unconscious, and though it might shock most people's morality, consciousness has its purposes for doing things.

Yes, your consciousness can be in agreement with it even if your mind is morally opposed to abortion.

[Amarena]

I can only tell you that I believe in miracles.
Last time I said it, the person told me to wake up and see the reality. Oh, I can see the reality, but I try to see only the full half of the glass and show it to everyone, because it’s there.

[AidanMatthews216]

Beyond that, the taking of a human life by another human is always undeniably and forever wrong.

Do you consider a human embryo deserving of life, even though it isn't conscious?

What about an adult cow?

[Matthew Shea]

Regarding the embryo, how do you know it isn't conscious? Have you ever watched video of very young fetuses in the womb? When you see how babies react to their environment only a few months into the pregnancy, it's hard to argue there isn't consciousness yet. Even putting that aside, given time, it will develop into a human. As far as I'm concerned, that makes it human and gives it equal rights to an adult.

Regarding the cow, we're talking about human life here, specifically one's control over their own life or a life growing inside them. The meat eating debate has been hashed out a million times here already.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

Regarding the embryo, how do you know it isn't conscious?

It has no nerves and no sense organs.

If a human embryo is conscious, then why not mosquitoes? Yeast?

Have you ever watched video of very young fetuses in the womb? When you see how babies react to their environment only a few months into the pregnancy, it's hard to argue there isn't consciousness yet. Even putting that aside, given time, it will develop into a human. As far as I'm concerned, that makes it human and gives it equal rights to an adult.

Why does being a *potential* human give it *actual* rights?

Regarding the cow, we're talking about human life here, specifically one's control over their own life or a life growing inside them. The meat eating debate has been hashed out a million times here already.

My point was that it shouldn't necessarily be given life merely because it is human. For me, consciousness and the capacity for suffering are far more important. A human embryo has neither, whereas an adult cow has both. Yet many people on the pro-life side choose to eat meat. I'm not arguing for vegetarianism (you're right, that's been hashed out too many times) but just trying to show that everyone is so taken up with the fact that this organism is human, which in the earliest stages of life doesn't mean much. A banana is 50% genetically identical to us--does that make it murder to eat one?

[Matthew Shea]

My point is that we're picking nits trying to draw a line to determine at what point a human embryo/fetus/etc gains a right to life. Why? Why shouldn't all human life be protected, regardless of what stage it's at? Integral to this debate is the fact that highly effective birth control is widely available, so if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, 90 - 99% of the time, she shouldn't even have to worry about it. This SHOULD make abortion a rare exception to the case where birth control failed and there's a compelling reason that the pregnancy shouldn't be carried through. People are so irresponsible with their sex lives, though, that something that SHOULD be a rarity is now commonplace and that disturbs me deeply. The way I see it, people don't take the fact that we're dealing with a human life seriously, especially at the most important point: BEFORE the sexual act. Seriously, are condoms REALLY that hard to use?

When you can prevent an unwanted pregnancy with a reasonable effort, which is ABSOLUTELY possible these days, you have a duty to do so. In this way, abortion is something that can and should be avoided, regardless of any pissing contest of whether the embryo has rights or not.

Finally, so no one misunderstands, I don't want to take away a woman's legal right to an abortion. Government shouldn't be involved in such a deeply personal decision, especially since no reasonable person would really want such a thing, but we should be doing a lot more to remove the demand for it. Educating people about and giving them incentives to use birth control is a start, but cultural attitudes about sex need to change, too.

[Tasaio]

I respect you and your opinions. You've been consistently intelligent and reserved. Please respect differing opinions as well, and do not dismiss them as pissing contests.

What I say hereon is prefaced by IMO.

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

My point is that we're picking nits trying to draw a line to determine at what point a human embryo/fetus/etc gains a right to life.

No, we aren't picking nits. That line, yet-to-be-drawn, is the crux of the debate.

Why? Why shouldn't all human life be protected, regardless of what stage it's at?

Because some humans are worth more than others.

A productive woman is more valueable than a dependent newborn.

Integral to this debate is the fact that highly effective birth control is widely available, so if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, 90 - 99% of the time, she shouldn't even have to worry about it.

Birth control could have side effects.

And birth control is not so widespread. Two 14-year-olds can't get their hands on it, so they go without it.

This SHOULD make abortion a rare exception to the case where birth control failed and there's a compelling reason that the pregnancy shouldn't be carried through.

How could someone prove this in court, though?

People are so irresponsible with their sex lives, though, that something that SHOULD be a rarity is now commonplace and that disturbs me deeply.

What is this "something" you refer to? Surprise pregnancies, or abortion?

Don't let it disturb you deeply. It's not your personal problem, is it?

You've put this chip on your own shoulder.

The way I see it, people don't take the fact that we're dealing with a human life seriously, especially at the most important point: BEFORE the sexual act.

Not everyone thinks they're creating a "human life", merely an embryo. The embryo's brain is so primitive that (in my opinion) it cannot be said to contain a soul, much less a consciousness.

Seriously, are condoms REALLY that hard to use?

Having never used one, I can only guess that it would be uncomfortable.

For all I know, it could cause irritation or damage.

When you can prevent an unwanted pregnancy with a reasonable effort, which is ABSOLUTELY possible these days, you have a duty to do so. In this way, abortion is something that can and should be avoided, regardless of any pissing contest of whether the embryo has rights or not.

This "pissing contest" is a complex debate that has ensued for years.

I used to be pro-life, like you. But then I had an awakening -- perhaps as a result of seeking out education. I became aware of the hypocrisy of "saving" a fetus so that it could be raised in a terrible environment.

Look at the matter logically.

[Matthew Shea]

Thanks for your well-considered reply, Tasaio. Here's my response:

Originally Posted by Tasaio

Because some humans are worth more than others. A productive woman is more valueable than a dependent newborn.

I agree with that statement, but we are talking about an issue of life, here, and in the big scheme of things, all life is important. If a woman chooses to abort a child, she'd better have a good reason.

Birth control could have side effects.

And birth control is not so widespread. Two 14-year-olds can't get their hands on it, so they go without it.

Not widespread? Are you kidding? I can walk into any drug or grocery store in the country and find something to suit this purpose. Also, there are many options available for birth control and if one doesn't suit you, there are always other options, both artificial and natural. A 14 year old can walk into a drug store and buy a box of condoms just like anyone else. At least here, there's no age restriction on buying them.

How could someone prove this in court, though?

I would never require that.

What is this "something" you refer to? Surprise pregnancies, or abortion?

Well, both really.

Don't let it disturb you deeply. It's not your personal problem, is it?

You've put this chip on your own shoulder.

It's not my problem personally, but it's a reflection of the society I live in. I want what's best for everyone, thus my viewpoint on this matter.

Not everyone thinks they're creating a "human life", merely an embryo. The embryo's brain is so primitive that (in my opinion) it cannot be said to contain a soul, much less a consciousness.

I think that's got to change. It may not be conscious during the first stages of pregnancy, but it sure is by the time it's born. I think we should focus on the life being created, not the debate of whether it's conscious or not.

Having never used one, I can only guess that it would be uncomfortable.

For all I know, it could cause irritation or damage.

My wife and I currently use them as our primary means of birth control. It's truly not a big deal, unless you're allergic (which is not a common problem).

This "pissing contest" is a complex debate that has ensued for years.

I used to be pro-life, like you. But then I had an awakening -- perhaps as a result of seeking out education. I became aware of the hypocrisy of "saving" a fetus so that it could be raised in a terrible environment.

Look at the matter logically.

Legally, I consider myself pro-choice, actually, but that doesn't make abortion any less undesirable and we should all understand all the ramnifications of that choice. I agree that saving a baby from a life of despair is a noble idea, but the problem I see with that argument is that the baby has no choice in the matter and the mother is going to have an inherently biased view of the quality of her life. Logic isn't going to work here. We have to rely on moral guidance. Besides, if the mother is truly concerned that she can't properly raise a baby, why can't she do something to change that? Given the desire to change, society today provides all the tools necessary to do that. Wouldn't that be a much more noble choice than terminating the pregnancy? Also, how commonly do women in truly dire situations abort pregancies for that reason? If abortion is one choice, another, better one, is improving your life to enable you to properly care for a child.

As far as I'm concerned, an embryo, soulless or not, is life and is inherently valuable. That should gain it some measure of protection. As I've said before, that choice should be made by the individual, but it has to be taken very seriously.

[Chet]

Just so you know:
Condoms are not widely available (or trustworthy) in all parts of the world. In Egypt for example you can only buy them in pharmacies and then you have to ask, they are kept hidden under the counter. And they tend to break a lot (not much choide on brands or sizes either).

My problem with some of this debate is that defining when life starts is so subjective, there is some argument that it begins with the egg/sperm and thats how we got to 6 billion people in the world. I'm with the 'lets make it and keep it a matter of individual choice" crowd.

[Caveman Joe]

My tuppence'orth:

EUTHANASIA:
Despite reading up on the subject and considering carefully both sides of the debate, I've never been in a situation involving this, so I'm not qualified to comment. My input would be completely unqualified, ignorant and of no practical worth. If I have an opinion on this, I'll keep it to myself to avoid fuelling a pointless and irresolvable debate with more useless and irrelevant data. In short, I have absolutely no idea what I'm t