ERDoc Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Either life has sanctity, or it does not. So is it safe to assume that you are not a hunter and are opposed to the death penalty? Can we also assume that you have never used antibiotics either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akflightmedic Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Interesting thoughts when some say "you spread your legs now deal with it" mentality. My mother and father married at age 16 and had three kids whom they raised to adulthood and sent us on our way. My father retired at age 39 from the military. He and mom started their new life, just them, nothing but easy jobs and retirement in their future. Dad had a vas in his late 30s as well. At age 42, mom who is not healthy (severe asthma and allergies, bone issues, knee issues) became pregnant. Dad's vas had somehow spontaneously healed itself (some could argue it was never done properly intitially) but the fact remains he now has little swimmers going downstream again. Here is a lifelong couple, finished with raising their kids, starting another life together, not in the best of health and now they are faced with having a child. Will it affect her health for the worse? Will the child be disabled and totally change their retirement plans? Will they ever have time for just themselves before they die? Will they need to return full time to the workforce in order to support another child? There were a lot of tough questions I assume, as it was never really discussed with us kids and I don't think it should have been either. It was not our decision. They made their decision and I agree with it. I will say this, to try and paint the picture with such broad strokes is wrong, as there will always be scenarios/situations one has not even conceived, nor could they ever consider unless they themselves were in that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynical_as_hell Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 It's all irrelevant. A baby is a baby, whether the father was a rapist or not. Kill the rapist, not the baby. Perhaps YOU should stay out of this one until you grow some ethics. Before you critisize my ethics, perhaps you need to pull your head out of your butt and see this for what it is. You're poor attitude on life is making your perceptions and you have no intelligence behind it. Quite worrying about trying to be a hot shot here and always be right and maybe you will understand rape victims and why it would be better for them to not carry on a pregnancy that is caused by such actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Before you critisize my ethics, perhaps you need to pull your head out of your butt and see this for what it is. FAIL! I see this for exactly what it is. It is a discussion about the life of babies. Rape is not even an issue here. It is wholly irrelevant to the entire discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 So is it safe to assume that you are not a hunter and are opposed to the death penalty? Correct on both counts. Can we also assume that you have never used antibiotics either? Bacteria are as irrelevant to this discussion as rape is. What I am not -- and cannot stand -- is a hypocrite. You are either for life, or you are for murder. There is no middle ground. Situational ethics are not ethics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eydawn Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Oh criminy, really? THAT's your answer? And if you were really fanatical about this whole "protect ALL life" thing you'd go live in India, erasing your footprints and wearing a mask so as not to breathe in any insects... just saying, you're exhibiting a conviction to a degree, just like anyone else. Dude... come on. It's not that simple. You're not either "for life" or "for murder" in medicine as a whole, are you? Let's say you've got a terminal cancer patient... and you know that providing high level comfort care (aka more morphine) is directly hastening their demise. Do you withhold pain meds based on that? What about removal of artificial life support for a patient who has been comatose for several years? Is that murder? Or simply accepting that the patient will never again live under the definitions we use for "life" in our society? What about if you have a pregnancy that directly threatens the mother's life- to the degree where you are 80-90% sure that the mother *will die* if you allow the pregnancy to continue, thus also terminating the fetus? Does evaluating options in that case make you "pro murder"? (Note... I am not defending abortion... merely trying to further the discussion some.) Wendy CO EMT-B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERDoc Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Correct on both counts. Bacteria are as irrelevant to this discussion as rape is. What I am not -- and cannot stand -- is a hypocrite. You are either for life, or you are for murder. There is no middle ground. Situational ethics are not ethics. I will admit that I am surprised about you stance on hunting and the death penalty. How are bacteria irrelevant? They are living organisms therefore we must recognize the sanctity of their life also. You said it yourself, there is no middle ground. If an organism cannot survive without scavening the necessary things needed can it be said to be alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 And if you were really fanatical about this whole "protect ALL life" thing you'd go live in India, erasing your footprints and wearing a mask so as not to breathe in any insects... just saying, you're exhibiting a conviction to a degree, just like anyone else. Are you and ER Doc on acid? You two are hallucinating things that were never said here. I can think of no other reason that you would somehow read insects and bacteria into a discussion of human life, when the term "babies" has been specified multiple times. But, if you are bound and determined to hijack the thread, let's go with that for a second. The discussion is specifically of murder of human life. First of all, neither bacteria nor insects, nor vegetables are human. Second of all, killing in self-defence is not murder. And no, I do not kill insects, unless they threaten my immediate health or welfare. Yes, I actually pick up and carry Black Widow spiders out of my house rather than kill them. Dude... come on. It's not that simple. You're not either "for life" or "for murder" in medicine as a whole, are you? Let's say you've got a terminal cancer patient... and you know that providing high level comfort care (aka more morphine) is directly hastening their demise. Do you withhold pain meds based on that? Did they ask for it? If so, so be it. I am not against euthanasia or assisted suicide, or even your basic, run of the mill suicide. It's your life. Do with it what you will. But the baby's life is not yours to decide. What about removal of artificial life support for a patient who has been comatose for several years? Is that murder? Or simply accepting that the patient will never again live under the definitions we use for "life" in our society? I am not totally opposed to the concept. I do, however, have concerns about the ethics of the decision making process leading up to it. What about if you have a pregnancy that directly threatens the mother's life- to the degree where you are 80-90% sure that the mother *will die* if you allow the pregnancy to continue, thus also terminating the fetus? Does evaluating options in that case make you "pro murder"? Self-defence. Off with his head. But abortion to spare the mother's delicate feelings is not self-defence. It's murder. Yes, Wendy, it is that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 When Nat Hentoff, the self-described leftist Jewish atheist whose views on abortion I linked near the beginning of this thread, found himself on pro-life panels with Catholic bishops, some of them marveled. They said something like, We're here because the Church teaches that killing a fetus deprives him or her of eternal beatitude in Heaven. But you - you don't revere Church teachings, you don't acknowledge the existence of God, you don't believe in the survival of consciousness after death - why do you care what happens to babies who you're sure would have no life besides the material one? Hentoff replied, "Because that's all I've got!" So now I have a question for Dust, or anyone who agrees with what he's expressed. And I'll start by saying I enjoy your bluntness (just this once ) and apologizing if I've misunderstood something you've said, and I ask you to correct me. Dust (and those who say the kinds of things he's said): If the conceptus has moral rights worthy of the same protection any (other) human being has, rights to which the circumstances under which the conception occurred are irrelevant and which those rights trump, then would it not be obligatory to protect those rights before they can be threatened? Because individuals' life and bodily integrity are sacrosanct, we refrain from recklessly risking their violation, and we try to prevent/punish those who show those rights "reckless disregard." For example, we censure and disarm people of any age who play recklessly with guns, or even with sharp sticks, or with rope, or who engage in horseplay in a swimming pool. That's why it seems (at least logically) consistent for prolifers to promote sexual abstinence in circumstances under which babies are unwelcome. If every act of coitus invites into existence a new - or reincarnated - human life, for whose welfare his or her parents will be responsible for at least two decades, and longer in some cases of disability - coitus is to be reserved for those committed to becoming ancestors at the moment of potential impregnation. On this view, the sexual revolution was/is an invitation to genocide at worst, or prolonged neglect of children at best. And because of the causal link between pregnancy and insemination, prepared by erotic arousal, we're not surprised to find prolifers taking a grave rather than casual attitude toward all matters sexual, just as simple neighborliness takes a grave attitude toward guns and ammo: Whatever creates life as well as whatever destroys life warrants deep respect, surely caution, even awe, whether the mood of that deference is sacred or secular. Like the bishops quizzical at Nat Hentoff's blasé attitude toward theological principles, I'm wondering how you square a refusal to compromise the natural integrity of the "products of conception" with posts in which you seem, let us at least say, less worried than your average bishop about avoiding "sin and the near occasion of sin" (until I learn to embed code in this reincarnated website, you'll have to google that phrase if it's unfamiliar). In short, prolifers aren't much given to bawdy jokes. But Dust is much given to bawdy jokes. Ergo, Dust's prolife stance comes as a surprise to at least this reader. Since Dustdevil is highly attuned to logical consistency, I cast about for a possible explanation for his tolerance of, not to say leadership in, lascivious imagination even as he remains uncompromising about the induction of anyone's minimum two-decade commitment arising out of its natural fulfillment - and we've learned here that even vasectomies can fail to filter out bambini. Is it that: 1) He deliberately disregards inconsistency when he finds doing so convenient? (I doubt that, particularly not in matters that at least he defines as life-or-death.) 2) He relishes self-control by tempting himself and others and pulling back from the brink, the way Mohandas Gandhi is said to have tested his own resolve to celibacy by sleeping with nubile women and refraining from be-nubilizng them? (Maybe.) 3) He finds sexual humor as disconnected from sexual activity as racial or grotesque humor might be to a non-racist and humanist? (Maybe.) 4) Other? Again, apologies if I've misconstrued something here. Dust, what sayest thou? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Let me try putting it this way, Dust. Human beings are capable of giving, and depend on receiving, one another’s emergency medical care to a far higher and more complex degree than are any other creatures dependent on members of their own species’ resources in medical emergencies (which, so far as I know, don’t go much past licking their offsprings’ wounds). Human beings can utilize a vast and ever-growing array of physical, chemical, psychological, and some would add spiritual resources to address one another’s infirmities and traumas. The prospect of providing such aid provokes certain feelings to arise in the provider. Some of these feelings support the task of providing stability, comfort, and health in pursuit of maximally restoring the patient’s independence, and others detract from it. Because we are not built as perfectly efficient administrators of aid, some of our natural feelings – such as terror, disgust, or anger – will distract us from optimally responding to patients’ needs, while others, such as pity, need to be transformed, say, into compassion. Some feelings are useful in the form they arise. In order to prevent the dysfunctional feelings from betraying the patient’s best interest, providers need to start selecting, transforming, and cultivating the useful feelings early. Most prominent among the feelings that arise when responding to an emergency is excitement. Heightened reactivity to our environment is essential for responding with sufficient interventive attention, or judiciously refraining from intervening or influencing what we find. But just as sympathy can degenerate into self-indulgent sentimentality that helps no one and can actually endanger those who are dependent on responsible providers, excitement can also become an end in itself for “adrenaline junkies.” Fetishizing a natural pleasurable byproduct of providing patient care compromises its goal of restoring health, perversely turning the goal into a dispensable byproduct of the means. That is met here with scorn. Here, the consensus seems to be that, Yes, appreciating the beauty or intricacy of equipment such as flashing lights is legitimate, but only so long as it ultimately serves caring for the patient. Yes, committing one’s energies to controlling a scene is a worthy endeavor, but only so long as it serves the goal of securing optimal care for the patient, which is why badge and weapon enthusiasts get bashed here. Yes, enjoying the sensations afforded by high-speed transportation, preparing in advance for sudden combat, composing eloquent run-sheets, fretting over vehicle-maintenance, celebrating triumphs and relieving stress are fine pursuits, but only so long as they ultimately serve caring for the patient - which is why boasting, bravado, and hero-posturing are condemned here. Truly competent technique is oriented toward the patient’s welfare, and the sign of a job well done is along the lines of a provider’s quiet, grateful relief rather than self-congratulation. Am I correct in believing that the consensus here minimally subscribes to that order of priority? And am I right in understanding that the reason it does so is that someone’s life may be in your hands? Haven’t the lasting controversies here been about that, eg: Do practical jokes advance patient care by offering providers occasions for building camaraderie and relieving tension – or do practical jokes detract from patient care by displacing providers’ attention, provoking mistrust of one’s associates, and hazarding wasting resources and consequently human life? Now what has this to do with the proposition that the integrity of fetal life merits protection? Well… let me repeat the last few paragraphs with a few replaced words. Human beings are capable of, and depend on, one another’s parental caring to a far higher and more complex degree than are any other creatures dependent on members of their own species’ resources (which attain biological and social independence far earlier). Human beings can utilize a vast and ever-growing array of physical, chemical, psychological, and some would add spiritual resources to address one another’s procreative capacities. The prospect of engaging in acts that lead to conceiving provokes certain feelings to arise in the procreators. Some of these feelings support the task of providing stability, comfort, and health in pursuit of maximally facilitating offsprings’ eventual independence, and others detract from it. Because we are not built as perfectly efficient agents of biological reproduction, some of our feelings – such as jealousy, possessiveness, domination, submissiveness – distract us from optimally providing offsprings’ needed care; others, such as pity, need to be transformed, say, into compassion. Some feelings are useful in the form they arise. In order to prevent the dysfunctional feelings from betraying what’s in their family’s best interest, individuals need to start selecting, transforming, and cultivating the useful feelings early. Most prominent among the feelings that arise when engaging in procreation is excitement. Heightened reactivity to our environment is essential for responding with sufficient interventive attention, or judiciously refraining from intervening or influencing what we find. But just as attraction can degenerate into self-indulgent possessiveness that helps no one and can actually endanger those who are dependent on responsible partners, excitement can also become an end in itself for “endorphin junkies.” Fetishizing a natural, pleasurable byproduct of procreation compromises its goal of producing children, perversely turning the goal into a dispensable byproduct of the means. Among pro-lifers, discarding the product of sex is met with scorn. Their consensus seems to be that, Yes, appreciating the beauty or intricacy of equipment such as physical form and style is legitimate, but only so long as it ultimately serves caring for the family one is initiating. Yes, committing one’s energies to controlling a scene is a worthy endeavor, but only so long as it serves the goal of securing optimal care for the family one is initiating, which is why partnership control-freaks are referred to counseling. Yes, enjoying the sensations afforded by consummation and its approach, preparing in advance for sudden emotional combat, composing eloquent appreciations, fretting over body-maintenance, celebrating triumphs and relieving stress are fine pursuits, but only so long as they ultimately serve caring for the family one is initiating – which is why boasting, bravado, and stud-posturing are not signs of desirable qualities in a mate; truly competent technique is oriented toward the other’s satisfaction, and the sign of a job well done is along the lines of a quiet, grateful twinkle in the eye rather than self-congratulation. Am I correct in believing that pro-lifers minimally subscribe to that order of priority, and am I right in understanding that the reason they do is that someone’s life may be in your hands? Hasn’t the tension between pro-lifers and much of popular culture been about that, eg: Does making light of sex advance familial care by offering partners occasions for building camaraderie and relieving tension – or does locating sources for arousal outside the procreation-oriented partnership detract from parental care by displacing partners’ attention, provoking their mistrust, and hazarding wasting resources and consequently human life? That’s why strong pro-life views combined with strong pro-eroticism views perplex me. It would be like hearing someone champion a reckless approach to emergency medical services while demanding a strict approach to their outcome. How are these two attitudes compatible: condemning using an ambulance for a joy-ride, because doing so recklessly misuses its valuable purpose of promoting and protecting vulnerable human lives, while endorsing the joy-ride of four bare legs in a bed, which on the pro-life view also recklessly misuses its valuable purpose of promoting and protecting vulnerable human lives? Dust, are you still there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts