Pro-life or Pro-choice?

[flower]

Fair enough... Couple of questions to pass the time...

Do you believe people should be free to commit suicide, if they so choose?

Do you mean euthanasia? Well, I don't want to go off-topic too much from the actual topic but yes, but only in the ways of euthanasia. Obviously I believe the person should have tried all kinds of different methods to help himself/herself like getting professional help for example. In the end, everyone make their own life choices, how sad or horrible they might be to others (freedom).

 

[Emanuel Goldstein]

Do you mean euthanasia? Well, I don't want to go off-topic too much from the actual topic but yes, but only in the ways of euthanasia. Obviously I believe the person should have tried all kinds of different methods to help himself/herself like getting professional help for example. In the end, everyone make their own life choices, how sad or horrible they might be to others (freedom).

Nope... I mean jumping of a bridge onto a busy highway... Or dropping a toaster into the tubby...

... and youth in Asia are quite relevant... I assure you

Would you stop someone trying to commit suicide, or have the police pull them of the proverbial ledge?

 

[Ifur]

Quite a lot of arguments across the spectrum of both biology and religion. In an attempt at making this somewhat normative, not all religions can be respected fully.

Let's assume there is such a thing as a limited set of combination of genes that give a distinctly different "soul", within this there is also a nature nurture element that doesn't allow saying that someone with the identical genes are the same, nor that two which are different have the same "soul". Let's call this a body and soul continuum spectrum.

Medical science has gotten to a point were everyone participating in this discussion only get to vote for themselves, which also includes "what other souls to allow in the immediate family".

List medical conditions you would be fine with, as there is a huge difference of making this hypothetical prior to self-awareness and consciousness that doesn't happen immediately after or prior to birth.

I'd be willing to make list a long list of things I wouldn't be fine with, like for example intolerance to sun light, where I'd go, "would be able to /live/ with it, but probably better to cut it short prior to being an actual person.

At the top of that list, I'd however put parents that don't want children. Not being very keen on societies where others think they have a right to opinions about moral choices and judgements of others. Or generally making living nightmares with forced ideologies and religions and duties dictated by all kinds of delusional state institutions and organisations that know best.

As a member of an advanced alien civilisation, I'd probably vote to abort a planet much like this one due to the future that is being created -- between 7 and 8 billion people on a planet that scientifically barely supports 3 billion, everyone should be in favour of abortion when conditions aren't optimal. Idiots seem to have more accidents than others as well, so should seriously consider encouraging abortion.

Maybe I'm just grumpy about, there are biological drives and such; it is however best not to. And for those other socially maladjusted on this forum, enough spare time and resources to find communities and peers more like oneself to be nearby and go to school with might have been better. So perhaps if the best one can hope for is the benevolence of public offerings and similar lotteries. I'd like to point out that there is evidence and indication that stone age man worked on average 2 hours per day. So places like Lugano in Switzerland during the stone age --- I'd put that high on the list -- there are many other good candidates, like places with Obsidian in them, as this can be made 40 times sharper than steel, for shaving and things like that.

There is a minima and maxima to consider, and currently, thanks to many religions it's the minimal premise for life and maximum exploitation.

 

[acd]

So then why do you think there is so much hub-bub around this topic, if all your doing is having an insignificant disease infested parasite removed?

Because people love to be self-righteous and tell other people what to do.

 

[Chandler W]

So, the question says it all. Why you support one of the two and why? And what is solution according to you

I support neither. Both groups are polarized and have demonized the other. I cannot support such groups which do not have respect for those of differing opinion. However, this being said I lean more towards pro-life groups. I believe that an individual has a choice whether or not to participate in sexual activity. However the consequences of such actions cannot always be controlled. A mother of a child who has chosen to act in a manner which biologically is intended for reproduction and becomes pregnant has chosen to have a child. She and the father (if consent was given) chose to have sex and thus life was created. They both are responsible for this and should be held accountable. I do not believe they have the right however to decide for another (the offspring) the right to live or die. Individuals need to take responsibility for their actions. Sexual activity being one of them. Terminating life no matter the stage of development (except in the case of rape, incest or in the matter of a medical emergency) is simply unacceptable.

 

[Ifur]

I support neither. Both groups are polarized and have demonized the other. I cannot support such groups which do not have respect for those of differing opinion. However, this being said I lean more towards pro-life groups. I believe that an individual has a choice whether or not to participate in sexual activity. However the consequences of such actions cannot always be controlled. A mother of a child who has chosen to act in a manner which biologically is intended for reproduction and becomes pregnant has chosen to have a child. She and the father (if consent was given) chose to have sex and thus life was created. They both are responsible for this and should be held accountable. I do not believe they have the right however to decide for another (the offspring) the right to live or die. Individuals need to take responsibility for their actions. Sexual activity being one of them. Terminating life no matter the stage of development (except in the case of rape, incest or in the matter of a medical emergency) is simply unacceptable.

I'm afraid you have chosen to be wrong in a life and death question, and according to yourself, this is unyielding and unforgiving with consequences you personally are going to have to pay for.

Or could you consider to argue differently, as science, common sense along with plain old logic disagrees with you.

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

Lolo I support the abortion of this thread.

 

[Pin]

Do you mean euthanasia?

I am opposed to this, are you?

Spoiler

We have to cure, not kill. Legalizing euthanasia is a slippery slope.

 

[Chandler W]

I'm afraid you have chosen to be wrong in a life and death question, and according to yourself, this is unyielding and unforgiving with consequences you personally are going to have to pay for.

Or could you consider to argue differently, as science, common sense along with plain old logic disagrees with you.

I respect your opinions on this matter. We are all entitled to our beliefs and I am grateful that you are standing firm in what you believe. I will continue to believe that actions have consequences and that individuals should take responsibility for their actions whatever they might be. Even if they are unyielding or unforgiving. It is my belief that if I were to make a decision which led to negative consequences I would need to take responsibility. I also plan on continuing to support the science behind reproduction and the facts presented therein by medical professionals. I also will continue to say that human life is important and whether they are sixty years old or just days into conception that person is still important and not to be discounted. I hope that others might continue to support life and support choices and their consequences.

 

[Ifur]

I am opposed to this, are you?

Spoiler

We have to cure, not kill. Legalizing euthanasia is a slippery slope.

Do we though? All sort of crazy shit went on just a few generations ago when both more shit happened and less could be discovered.

To some extent it's gone from, "you can live in the attic and we will feed you, but at some point you go into the woods during winter or we help you.

Last I was at a retirement home, one of the demented patients kept asking for directions to a place where you could do just that, take a walk up a blistering mountain.
Might be he grew up when that was more common for older people to do, figuring it was his time now -- not knowing he'd been imprisoned in a retirement home with dementia.

More disease in cities in the past, so may have been more common to get sick and die at old age. Many are kept alive with flue shots and the like these days, and fed intravenously.

Some things have to be allowed and frowned upon, otherwise it will always get done illegally anyways; think this thread has gone bad as @Milktoast Bandit said.

 

[Ifur]

I respect your opinions on this matter. We are all entitled to our beliefs and I am grateful that you are standing firm in what you believe. I will continue to believe that actions have consequences and that individuals should take responsibility for their actions whatever they might be. Even if they are unyielding or unforgiving. It is my belief that if I were to make a decision which led to negative consequences I would need to take responsibility. I also plan on continuing to support the science behind reproduction and the facts presented therein by medical professionals. I also will continue to say that human life is important and whether they are sixty years old or just days into conception that person is still important and not to be discounted. I hope that others might continue to support life and support choices and their consequences.

You seem to think thoughts and ideas have consequences, they do not. Moral standards are not virtues either, lofty ideals and naivete about the ugly truth of nature a poor substitute for ethics and moral behaviour.

Let's start with the scientific fact that sexual activity for humans along with many other species aren't purely for reproduction. If you believe otherwise we have a tendency to scoff that of has delusional religious views with moral consequences for them selves and nobody else.

 

[Pin]

Do we though? All sort of crazy shit went on just a few generations ago when both more shit happened and less could be discovered.

To some extent it's gone from, "you can live in the attic and we will feed you, but at some point you go into the woods during winter or we help you.

Last I was at a retirement home, one of the demented patients kept asking for directions to a place where you could do just that, take a walk up a blistering mountain.
Might be he grew up when that was more common for older people to do, figuring it was his time now -- not knowing he'd been imprisoned in a retirement home with dementia.

More disease in cities in the past, so may have been more common to get sick and die at old age. Many are kept alive with flue shots and the like these days, and fed intravenously.

Some things have to be allowed and frowned upon, otherwise it will always get done illegally anyways; think this thread has gone bad as @Milktoast Bandit said.

Yeah, I think that human beings have a moral obligation to reduce people's suffering without removing their capacity to experience joy and affirm life. People will probably always attempt suicide or euthanasia but we've got a moral responsibility to them.

 

[Chandler W]

I respect where your argument is coming from. And I agree there are exceptions for every case. I work in a field highly connected to your example of a retirement home and the mentally disabled. I understand the nuances of age, illness and assisting someone to remain alive despite mental illness. It is an extremely complicated matter having to determine the worth of a life and the termination of such. Laws and moral values of our society are constantly present and changing. It is daunting and highly difficult to balance both while respecting the opinions and or beliefs of others. We must continue to remain stalwart in order to do what we feel is best for those we love and for our society even if it is difficult. Such is the argument of pro-life and pro-choice.

 

[Ifur]

Laws and moral values of our society are constantly present and changing. It is daunting and highly difficult to balance both while respecting the opinions and or beliefs of others. We must continue to remain stalwart in order to do what we feel is best for those we love and for our society even if it is difficult. Such is the argument of pro-life and pro-choice.

Certain positions come with legal immunity in duties and work where convictions in court are required for them to lose their job.
I think in most societies, buried deep within legal code and perhaps forgotten or ruined.
There has always been an option without making it public policy and public debate.
Where special wording around the last treatment tells everyone in the profession to not look into it.

(between avoid causing injury and suffering to patients, and the right to end care at any point in treatment -- there seem to be room for questionable things. Throughout medical history it has been largely legal with the exception of the christian western world, and has been on ongoing debate since the Renaissance. In the real world in larger societies certain things may be unavoidable to claim compassion. Wiki: In January 1936, King George V was given a fatal dose of morphine and cocaine to hasten his death. At the time he was suffering from cardio-respiratory failure, and the decision to end his life was made by his physician, Lord Dawson.[45] Although this event was kept a secret for over 50 years, the death of George V coincided with proposed legislation in the House of Lords to legalise euthanasia.[46])

 

[Emanuel Goldstein]

Because people love to be self-righteous and tell other people what to do.

That's right I should be able to beat my dog in my yard because my dog, my yard don't tell me what to do in my yard to my dog.

Is this your arguement?

 

[Emanuel Goldstein]

@acd If you saw someone beating a dog in their yard... you would likely be the first person to call the police.... even though it is neither your dog; nor your yard...

Should this too be considered self righteous? It probably is self-righteous... but then most people would agree that the guy beating his dog should go to jail... just because someone is convinced of there righteousness does not make them automatically wrong... does it?

 

[Emanuel Goldstein]

The principle is the same with someone who wants to commit suicide... man or woman. If you agree that they should be "stopped" or "saved" from committing suicide you are interferring with their body and what they want to do.

The man with the dog and the person who want to commit suicide are being irresponsible and thus we take away the dog and medicate the suicidal person...

 

[Ifur]

That's right I should be able to beat my dog in my yard because my dog, my yard don't tell me what to do in my yard to my dog.

Is this your arguement?

You may think this is an argument from absurdity, and therefore rhetorical.
Let's look at the strength of your argument, not interested in your convictions here.

You are comparing animal abuse to aborting a fetus before it qualifies as "life".
A yard is not comparable to a womb, it's also not something a man can own or have a say in.
An abortion procedure don't involve beating a womb with a fetus, while ignoring the complains of the woman.
That has not stopped people to attempt just that due to religious convictions and concerns about social consequences.

If the yard here is the womb of a woman, reason extends from added legal concerns that self injury involves her family and not the family of the fetus.

I don't think you should attempt further legal or moral arguments, as there seems to be a rather severe limitation between personal concerns and thoughts for others, and actual concerns and circumstances of others that lend itself to objective arguments and recognising that there is a difference where moral and ethical concerns stemming from tradition, culture philosophy and religious views does not work as a substitute to independent thought and empathy that can be said to have an objective nature for addressing the point of views, concerns and needs of others.

 

[Ifur]

Let's make this pro-life and pro-choice discussion a much bigger flare as to remove modern medicine from it.
And I know a bit about it due to ancestry, where otherwise attractive, healthy and fertile individuals can't possibly feed all accidents unless risk starvation and illness for the larger family.

The Íslendingabók, a main source for the early history of Iceland, recounts that on the Conversion of Iceland to Christianity in 1000 it was provided – in order to make the transition more palatable to Pagans – that "the old laws allowing exposure of newborn children will remain in force". However, this provision – like other concessions made at the time to the Pagans – was abolished some years later.

And to be clear, this is not as straight forward as it sounds, as most infants would survive a night in the cold. Infants can convert fat into heat directly, something adults don't really do; and it involves brown fat. Many mothers have died unnecessarily by putting extra clothes on the infant caught in a storm. But in many cases it might have been abortion.... exposure to weather is documented elsewhere in Scandinavia as a ceremonial thing to "harden" infants. So a bit useful information here, being too hot is more of a health problem than being cold for infants, and it's better to not be born during summer.

Should add more gold from that wiki page:

"It was the custom of the [Teutonic] pagans, that if they wanted to kill a son or daughter, they would be killed before they had been given any food." (exposure to forest / nature)

Middle Ages[edit]
Whereas theologians and clerics preached sparing their lives, newborn abandonment continued as registered in both the literature record and in legal documents.[5]:16According to William L. Langer, exposure in the Middle Ages "was practiced on gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference".[44]:355–356 At the end of the 12th century, notes Richard Trexler, Roman women threw their newborns into the Tiber river in daylight.[45]

Unlike other European regions, in the Middle Ages the German mother had the right to expose the newborn.[46] In Gotland, Sweden, children were also sacrificed.[47]

In the High Middle Ages, abandoning unwanted children finally eclipsed infanticide.[citation needed] Unwanted children were left at the door of church or abbey, and the clergy was assumed to take care of their upbringing. This practice also gave rise to the first orphanages.

However, very high sex ratios were common in even late medieval Europe, which may indicate sex-selective infanticide.[48]

So this sounds quite strange obviously, but there is another aspect of this; which deals with which family a child belongs to. As a general rule, younger than 4-6 they would always go with their mother, and around 12 as a general rule they would need to live and learn with and about the other clan / family.

Fairly decent moral and ethical dilemma of pro-life and pro-life not being so straight forward, might be a bit of a challenge keeping population down if the only condoms you have is sheep intestines tied in a knot.

 

[flower]

Nope... I mean jumping of a bridge onto a busy highway... Or dropping a toaster into the tubby...

... and youth in Asia are quite relevant... I assure you

Would you stop someone trying to commit suicide, or have the police pull them of the proverbial ledge?

Umm... I don't know really. I guess talking about suicide in general makes me a bit uncomfortable so I leave the talk about it to that. Hope you understand!

I am opposed to this, are you?

Spoiler

We have to cure, not kill. Legalizing euthanasia is a slippery slope.

I'm not sure to be honest. Somehow it would be great that those who suffer greatly (for example a very aggressive cancer which can't be cured and death is inevitable within weeks etc.) it could stop someone's suffering before suffering becomes even worse (painful death?), then I would agree with euthanasia. It really depends on the issue itself so I don't think there's a clear "yes or no" answer to euthanasia.