Your Moral Compass

redrumloa said:
Are you an American progressive?
Click to expand...

The paper you're referring to comes from the UK. Unless Oxford has relocated across the pond and forgot to tell us.

So I'll ask again, do you genuinely believe I think that way.

Further, incase you attempt to dodge the question again. Do you genuinely believe that "progressives" think this way?

Oh and you might want to read this, before answering either.
 
the_leander said:
The paper you're referring to comes from the UK. Unless Oxford has relocated across the pond and forgot to tell us.

So I'll ask again, do you genuinely believe I think that way.

Further, incase you attempt to dodge the question again. Do you genuinely believe that "progressives" think this way?

Oh and you might want to read this, before answering either.
Click to expand...

I know the paper was from the UK, but I mainly only focus on US politics. American "liberals" and "progressives" really do believe this. Take Whyzzat as an example. I've been called a "{bleep} asshole" for speaking negatively against eugenics.

BTW, did you REALLY think your link was going to sway me?

Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection – but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.

Good god man!:eek: You are a card carrying believer in eugenics.
 
redrumloa said:
Good god man!:eek: You are a card carrying believer in eugenics.
Click to expand...

OK, let's start with an extreme example - because we almost all agree about the middle of the road stuff. Infant born with metastatic tumors, life expectancy 4 weeks with intensive care, 2 weeks otherwise, currently in severe and untreatable pain. Is it right to try to get the newborn to live out the maximum number of weeks in agony that medical science can muster?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
OK, let's start with an extreme example - because we almost all agree about the middle of the road stuff. Infant born with metastatic tumors, life expectancy 4 weeks with intensive care, 2 weeks otherwise, currently in severe and untreatable pain. Is it right to try to get the newborn to live out the maximum number of weeks in agony that medical science can muster?
Click to expand...

Why do we go with extreme examples? The article does specify extreme examples. Progressives don't want people they deem drags on society.

A baby is born without legs and will require medical care and years of physical therapy to have a normal life. Doctor suggests the baby be killed as the humane thing to do, suggests (wrongly) the baby cannot lead a normal life and will be in lots of pain. I knew someone in business who was successful despite being born this way and having been a Shriner Kid (his own words). In the brave new world he would have been killed.

A baby is born deaf and doctor suspects metal retardation, suggesting to the parents the baby be killed as the humane thing to do. The world loses the next Einstein.
 
redrumloa said:
A baby is born deaf and doctor suspects metal retardation, suggesting to the parents the baby be killed as the humane thing to do. The world loses the next Einstein.
Click to expand...
Erm, are you trying to draw a parallel, because Einstein wasn't born deaf.
 
Gosh Fluffy, Would you have killed off that great Socialist Helen Keller? She was born deaf and blind.
If you answer yes, they're going to take away your membership. Have to turn in your hand book and everything.:oops:
 
redrumloa said:
Why do we go with extreme examples? The article does specify extreme examples. Progressives don't want people they deem drags on society.

A baby is born without legs and will require medical care and years of physical therapy to have a normal life. Doctor suggests the baby be killed as the humane thing to do, suggests (wrongly) the baby cannot lead a normal life and will be in lots of pain. I knew someone in business who was successful despite being born this way and having been a Shriner Kid (his own words). In the brave new world he would have been killed.

A baby is born deaf and doctor suspects metal retardation, suggesting to the parents the baby be killed as the humane thing to do. The world loses the next Einstein.
Click to expand...
This isn't to say the extreme examples aren't real. They are and we as a society have to deal with the situation. Children are born with spina bifida, for example. In the extreme cases the organs are outside the body. The kid won't live a couple days past birth, period. And as a one-on-one aid I got to spend a couple of months caring for a 2 year old who only had a brain stem. Care of a human who is essentially a Jellyfish is emotionally and financially draining.

I, also, find it intereting you request no extreme examples then you give Einstein, being 1 in a few billion he's a pretty extreme example in my book. Though note the thought you pushed in the last sentence is just as applicable if you end it with 'The world loses the next Stalin" Which is actually interesting. One of the reasons given to me by a Christian to be against abortion was 'What happens if we kill the 2nd coming of Christ before he's born'. My response was -- If an omniscient and omnipotent being can't figure that out well he's not the god you think he is.
 
faethor said:
I, also, find it intereting you request no extreme examples then you give Einstein, being 1 in a few billion he's a pretty extreme example in my book. Though note the thought you pushed in the last sentence is just as applicable if you end it with 'The world looses the next Stalin'. -- Which is actually interesting. One of the reasons given to me by a Christian to be against abortion was 'What happens if we kill the 2nd coming of Christ before he's born'. My response was -- If and omniscient and omnipotent being can't figure that out well he's not the god you think he is.
Click to expand...

Good points, well made faethor.

However the trouble religious fundamentalists have with this kind of logic is that it's logical.
 
redrumloa said:
I've been called a "{bleep} asshole" for speaking negatively against eugenics.
Click to expand...

No, you were called an asshole for misapplying the term.

redrumloa said:
BTW, did you REALLY think your link was going to sway me?
Click to expand...

Quite frankly I had grave doubts you'd even bother to read it. And looky, I was right. You got as far as the quote and stopped without even attempting to evaluate what the author was saying.

The link if you'd bothered to do anything but skim it points out that the paper requires you to make some pretty dubious leaps of logic and even when you have it's pretty darned ropey.

redrumloa said:


Good god man!:eek: You are a card carrying believer in eugenics.
Click to expand...

<facepalm>

Nope, but despite all our advances in technology and medicine, we can do nothing except relieve pain. One the responsibilities all practitioners carry toward their patients is that of dignity. It's a debate that on one side argues that we should keep people going regardless of cost or their wishes, and on the other argues that a person has the right to choose how and when to die. Or in cases where a person is incapable of making that decision, it be taken for them. This is why Doctors are paid the salaries they are - because these sorts of ethical conundrums are their meat and potatoes. All of it however, is part of Medical Ethics.


It's a tough subject and has nothing to do with eugenics. And it's precisely that kind of lunatic unlogic that got you called an asshole last time.
 
bomb_line_3.gif
 
the_leander said:
Nope, but despite all our advances in technology and medicine, we can do nothing except relieve pain. One the responsibilities all practitioners carry toward their patients is that of dignity. It's a debate that on one side argues that we should keep people going regardless of cost or their wishes, and on the other argues that a person has the right to choose how and when to die. Or in cases where a person is incapable of making that decision, it be taken for them. This is why Doctors are paid the salaries they are - because these sorts of ethical conundrums are their meat and potatoes. All of it however, is part of Medical Ethics.


It's a tough subject and has nothing to do with eugenics. And it's precisely that kind of lunatic unlogic that got you called an asshole last time.
Click to expand...
The_Leander, Good points.

I see the 'Eugenics' as the policy of an external agency (church, government, corporation) dictations when life begins and life ends. The other side of this coin is the freedom, nay right, of self determination. This is where the parental right to choose and death with dignity play.

If we have the case of a fetus that's developly misformed and unable to survive nature aborts it, about 50% of pregnancies end this way. Medicine does more then relieve pain. It's advanced to make some, but not all, conditions more survivable then they were in say 1776. If a family is going to lose that baby or have such a severe impact to quality of life of the person (eg. born with no brain only a stem) they should have ability to choose how to best play that out in the way they believe is the best possible outcome of the really bad situation.

Again medicine does more then relieve pain, it's advanced to make some, but not all conditions more, or less, survivable. Death isn't the black/white version in 1776. It's now grey. And there's some pretty far out things that could happen if the State dictates a life as long as possible, no matter what. For example, scientists have revived dogs after a few hours of 'death'. If there's no heartbeat or detectable brain activity we might consider that dead. Though after replacing blood with icy saline and a good electric shock the dog body came back to life. Of course there's the question if the brain will ever have higher processing functions than stem activity. There's no way around it if we're going to be dictated end of life we don't get away from defining what 'dead' means. Again this is why the right of self determination should be used. Each person should define what the ill defined 'dead' means to them and be empowered with the freedom on how they should approach that inevitable fate.
 
Alert: Brain Fart, Brain Fart, Brain Fart!
-----------------------------

Quote
"If a family is going to lose that baby or have such a severe impact to quality of life of the person (eg. born with no brain only a stem) they should have ability to choose how to best play that out in the way they believe is the best possible outcome of the really bad situation."
------------------------------

The Socialist, Liberal, Progressive brain is so miss wired that they don't even realize when they have started arguing for the rights of the goofs of the world, who think they should have the right to withhold chemo treatment from their child with cancer, because they think that's the best way to cure them.

I not only want the popcorn, but the Pepsi and candy bar, because this comedy is really getting entertaining. And it's really funny when people like Cecilia start liking it!

Somebody's brain stem is in dire need of repair.:dumb:
 
@Fade,
You need to not put words in people's mouths. Nothing I said was about withholding treatment IF there is a positive outcome. Both points were actually an outcome of imminent death. The second was the 'normal' long life, what to do at the end. The first was the very short lived after birth versus abortion.
 
Couldn't quiet make the connection there could you. That's alright Faethor, we still like you.
 
Heh, still got nothing eh Fade?

Don't worry, the adults will take it from here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top