so PVS is, in your estimation, well?!


but for the machines forcing their cells to continue funcitoning, they would not function. i think this is accurate even though it may be tasteless or whatever to you.

Barb:

I am not even sure where to begin with this. The context of what you present is so non-pertinent to what I am discussing here. I am speaking of medical ethics and the implications of applying purely subjective criteria as to what defines "person", almost all for the purposes of utility rather than inherent human worth, and the result of creating relative values to people in various medical situations.

You are speaking my valuing my right to live and actions taken to protect that right over the attemps of an attacker who would use his abilities to make decisions to take away my right to exist. In no way do I, or for that matter most anybody, see that as creating a hierarchy of worth in which my attacker ceases to be a "person" at that moment but I remain as such.

Capital punishment, while certainly some may hold in their hearts a value to those who have been unjustly killed and their family members remaining, more highly than the criminal, that is not the intention of capital punishment. It is not definig the criminal as a non-person relative to law-abiding citizens. It is holding that person responsible, as a person, for violating the most sacred of all rights, the right of another to live. However, I am not trying to debate capital punishment here, just point out that it is not the application of subjective criteria defining "personhood" to place the criminal on a totem pole position below anyone else. Whether you see it as that or not is your perogative, but that is not consistent with the bioethicist position. In fact, many bioethicists would see the criminal as still holding greater value based upon their subjective crteria, than say, an innocent law abiding citizen who is in a coma.



This is the whole point of the discussion, Barb.



This may certainly be true. I am not arguing that it is acceptable.



Once again, this was not a question of his value based upon subjective criteria defining "personhood", but applying responsibility and allowing one citizen to protect his right against a crime, and of course, protect his right against the criminal committing it. Far cry from dehydrating an inncoent person to death who is in a coma b/c they have no value as a "person" anylonger, based upon subjective criteria.

Sorry Ron, but there are far too many examples of people denied basic food and water that are not being kept alive by machines. Cases where parents are screaming at nurses and doctors to give care that is being withheld b/c the medical staff see the child as not worth it (due to their training in bioethics). Again, if you are committed to the truth of these things, then do the research. People usually find out about it the hard way, when a loved one in the hospital is denied treatment. Oh, the hospitals wised up, and cover their language so as not to stir the possibility of lawsuits, such as "the best interest of the patient" and "care for his quality of life." It is far too complex and broad for me to begin to even pierce here.

Ron, groups like"Doctors for Compassionate Helathcare" and "Not Dead Yet" did not come about for fun and games. They came about becuase they saw and experienced directly what was going on, and decided to fight these developments.

Becka:

Here is one of Margaret Sanger's speeches. I have also cut out some specific quotes so you can see the positions and weigh the implications of her positions. Damn if it does not sound like eugenics and Nazi-era ideas for creating "ideal gene pools":

http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/margaret_sanger_children.html

"I would like to suggest Civil Service examinations for parenthood! Prospective parents after such an examination would be given a parenthood license, proving that they are physically and mentally fit to be the fathers and mothers of the next generation."...

...And there would be certain conditions of circumstances which would preclude parenthood. These conditions, the presence of which would [/b][b]make parenthood a crime, are the following:

1. Transmissible disease
2. Temporary disease
3. Subnormal children already in the family
4. Space out between births
5. Twenty-three years as a minimum age for parents
6. Economic circumstances adequate
7. Spiritual harmony between parents.


Tell me, Becka, what organization would legislatively determine what subnormality is? The Nazis tried to do this too. Who would determine that economic circumstances are adequate? Why would 23 y.o. be the age? Why not 24 or 25, or does the legislature change the age each ear depending upon a survey of national conditions? Similar to China's 1 child policy, but if they catch you with more than 1 child, and God help if it is a girl, then what? Can it be legislated that an age ceiling be put in place? Spiritual harmony between parents huh? What quantitative measurements exist to determine this? Are the parents not to grow over time, working out personal shortcomings, or do they have to have achieved a state of perfect tranquility, that any breaking of it would result in the termination of reprodcutive ability etc? These are of course, rhetorical questions. This is all social engineering, no matter how it is spun.

Here is another article about her famous speech to the Ku Klux Klan. They shared many of her views. She wanted population control applied to Blacks, and immigrant Catholics from Europe (I think on the second one). If you scroll down far enough, you'll see her photo addressing the Klan. And remember, she and her famliy founded Planned Parenthood:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1294086/posts

A Modest Proposal, indeed.

Thank you for the select quotes. I'll add a few more to the pile:

"There is only one way out. We have got to fight for the health and happiness of the Unborn Child. And to do that in a practical, tangible way, we have got to free women from enforced, enslaved maternity. There can be no hope for the future of civilization, no certainty of racial salvation, until every woman can decide for herself whether she will or will not become a mother, and when and how many children she cares to bring into the world. ...

No, I doubt the advisability of governmental sanction. The problem of bringing children into the world ought to be decided by those most seriously involved -- those who run the greatest risks; in the last analysis -- by the mother and the child. ...

In conclusion, let me repeat: We are not trying to establish a dictatorship over parents. We want to free women from enslavery and unwilling motherhood. "

She's not advocating that parenthood be legislated, that much is clear. I'm not certain that she favors social engineering, either - although I can certainly understand how Nazi leaders would've spun that interpretation of her ideas to suit their purposes. (Btw, I think there is still support for some of those ideas among the general population - how many times have we seen articles posted in the cooler followed by comments that 'some people should not be allowed to have children' or they are 'candidates for involuntary sterlization,' etc.)

What she is clearly arguing for is the right for women to make their own, individual choice about if and/or when they want to become mothers. And again, she shows favor for prevention of unwanted pregnancies. (That speech was delivered in 1925 - how prevalent and accessible were contraceptives to women at that time?)

I certainly recognize that she supported legalizing contraception and promoting women having control over their bodies and pregnancy decisions. That much is obvious to me and shoud be to those who study her speeches. She also pressed for directing these efforts at slums, and especially at black communities. Her broader motives at legalizing contraception can be seen from othr of her documented works.
Here are some more quotes from her own works:

1) p.2 of Birth Control Review: "The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in The Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)


2) "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." (Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12) -


3) In Pivot of Civilization, Sanger referred to immigrants and poor folks as "human weeds," "reckless breeders," "spawning ... human beings who never should have been born."

4) "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon)

In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. (Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107)

One of Sanger's greatest influences, sexologist/eugenicist Dr. Havelock Ellis (with whom she had an affair, leading to her divorce from her first husband), urged mandatory sterilization of the poor as a prerequisite to receiving any public aid. (The Problem of Race Regeneration, by Havelock Ellis, p. 65, in Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, p. 18)


You say you can see how the Nazis would twist this? It needed no twisting, only applying. You can further read up on the Nazi T-4 Program, and see how it matched Margaret Sanger's visions and Francis Galton's, the inspiration of the pseudo-science, Eugenics

Becka, in my view, these are the types of questions we should be asking. I think, however, we have to add to your question the fact that in this case, removing the unwanted person necessarily results in that person's death, and the fact that the "intruder" is not just on the mother's "property" but actually invading her body.

In some circumstances, I believe that society would permit the "owner" to use lethal force to remove the intruder. In others, society would not permit lethal force. The answer may be different depending on whether the unwanted person was an "intruder" or was "invited."

Of the additional sources you cited, I think 'A Plan For Peace' does appear inconsistent with her previous speech from 1925. She seems to have made a radical departure from her earlier opposition to legislation or any government interference with matters of parenthood. Still, I would hesitate to term her position as "pro-abortion" - there is no mention of terminating pregnancies, only an extreme emphasis on means of prevention (i.e. contraceptives, sterilization).

As to the comment about wanting to "exterminate the Negro population," it occurs to me that her thinking would've predated the Civil Rights movement and such racist remarks may not have been as objectionable as they are today. But also, I think it is true that much attention is still given to poor (often minority) people, who are most in need of education about birth control.

If there is no alternative to lethal force, should that negate an owner's right to remove an intruder?



This distiction is what I was trying to get at with the case that started this discussion - that the father would be charged with the death of a person that the mother had "invited," as opposed to the mother's right to remove an "intruder."

It seems to me that the status of the fetus as invitee or intruder does not depend on who (the mother or her assailant) terminates the pregnancy. Rather, the status of the fetus as invitee or intruder would depend on the circumstances of conception. (Was the sex consensual; was contraception used?)

OK, once people age enough to where they lose their independence and cannot stay alive without assistance and they lose their "viability," should we be allowed to exterminate them?

You know, for their and societies' benefit...

I understand that point, but I see the status of "invitee" or "intruder" being directly related to the fact of a woman's body being her own property. If I lock my doors and a person breaks in my window, should I not have the right to remove him? If I invite a person to my property who subsequently poses a threat, should I not have the right to remove him? Do I not also have the choice to welcome a person who comes uninvited?

Of course if someone poses a threat in your home, you have the right to remove them and use force to protect yourself. The difference is that in the case of a pregnancy, the threat is derived from the mere existence of the fetus. In other words, there's no danger to the mother, except that her bodily integrity is compromised. So, IMO, the question goes back to whether she (with a partner of course) is responsible for creating the situation that she now wants to terminate.

Is it necessary that the mother's life be in danger for a fetus to pose a threat?

If we're assuming for this discussion that a fetus is a "person," the type of threat posed by a person is a consideration in determining whether you can use deadly force against them. In most states (but apparently not Texas), you can use deadly force against someone who threatens you with injury or death, but not necessarily someone who poses a lesser threat. I'm assuming (but it's certainly worthy of discussion) that the mother's interest in controlling her own body for the period of the pregnancy is a lesser interest than her interest in life itself. If we are weighing the mother's protected interest against the child's protected interest (in life itself), it makes some kind of difference if the mother's interest is a privacy/bodily integrity interest vs. an interest in life itself.

it's not a 2 way threshhold. the people who've aged already had the opportunity to declare their wishes for end of life.

But, where a lesser threat is posed there is still a right to have the unwanted person removed from your property by other means (chase them away, have them arrested, etc.) So we're back to my earlier question about whether having no alternative but deadly force should negate the right to fend off an intruder.

As to weighing the mother's interests, it was the economic threat that came to mind - consideration not just for whether carrying a fetus might endanger the woman's life, but also her livlihood.

Not to mention bad law.

Should wouldn't-be mothers resort to suicide as a means of terminating an unwanted pregnancy? In that case, would the fetus be considered responsible for the woman's death?

Becka, please stop. You're pretending that babies just show up in wombs at random. They don't. A woman who doesn't want a child has several specific steps they can take to avoid it, short of an abortion for convenience. One of them is fool-proof.

Seems to me most other birth control is more convenient. I would think a very small percentage of abortions are for "convenience"

Actually, a very large percentage are - the overwhelming majority.

How do you define "convenience"?

Not medically necessary. An abortion only because the baby is not wanted is one of convenience (self-centeredness, actually), and they are the vast majority.

Tom, please stop. If you think I don't recognize the choice a woman (or man) has to prevent pregnancy, then you're really not paying attention. That was the first thing I pointed to in this thread.