The dearth of self-awareness

#91
I think it comes down to what we determine as a quality of life. I’ve seen children with terrible deformities yet they have a bright spirit and they teach everyone around them so much. I understand life or death situations, and needing to make that call, but I do think it will create a slippery slope.
Reply
#92
Quote:There are fetus "considered" non-viable that are capable of surviving, so it's just false that every such fetus is "doomed to die".

Very rare I'd say. Our medicine is advanced enough that doctors can now tell the difference between a viable and non-viable fetus. To say it isn't is just living in the dark ages.
Reply
#93
(Feb 24, 2019 05:37 AM)Leigha Wrote: I think it comes down to what we determine as a quality of life. I’ve seen children with terrible deformities yet they have a bright spirit and they teach everyone around them so much. I understand life or death situations, and needing to make that call, but I do think it will create a slippery slope.

For one, taking the mothers psychological/emotional health out of the equation would remove a lot of ethical gray areas. And treating all children as equally deserving of the same standard of care, which may include life support until more doctors can be consulted and verify a prognosis, would go a long way to remove the medical gray areas. Then it becomes the family's decision to take them off life support, instead of deciding to preemptively withhold available care.

(Feb 24, 2019 05:41 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:There are fetus "considered" non-viable that are capable of surviving, so it's just false that every such fetus is "doomed to die".

Very rare I'd say. Our medicine is advanced enough that doctors can now tell the difference between a viable and non-viable fetus. To say it isn't is just living in the dark ages.

If even one such baby dies of neglect it is infanticide. So now you're just arguing about how many infanticides you think are acceptable. Rare is not none.

And no, doctors are not omniscience wizards, capable of knowing every medical outcome. This is why there are "miraculous" recoveries and "mysterious" deaths. To believe otherwise is naive scientism and a willful ignorance of reality.
Reply
#94
(Feb 24, 2019 05:43 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Feb 24, 2019 05:37 AM)Leigha Wrote: I think it comes down to what we determine as a quality of life. I’ve seen children with terrible deformities yet they have a bright spirit and they teach everyone around them so much. I understand life or death situations, and needing to make that call, but I do think it will create a slippery slope.

For one, taking the mothers psychological/emotional health out of the equation would remove a lot of ethical gray areas. And treating all children as equally deserving of the same standard of care, which may include life support until more doctors can be consulted and verify a prognosis, would go a long way to remove the medical gray areas. Then it becomes the family's decision to take them off life support, instead of deciding to preemptively withhold available care.

(Feb 24, 2019 05:41 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:There are fetus "considered" non-viable that are capable of surviving, so it's just false that every such fetus is "doomed to die".

Very rare I'd say. Our medicine is advanced enough that doctors can now tell the difference between a viable and non-viable fetus. To say it isn't is just living in the dark ages.

If even one such baby dies of neglect it is infanticide. So now you're just arguing about how many infanticides you think are acceptable. Rare is not none.

And no, doctors are not omniscience wizards, capable of knowing every medical outcome. This is why there are "miraculous" recoveries and "mysterious" deaths. To believe otherwise is naive scientism and a willful ignorance of reality.

Fortunately such delicate decisions remain with the doctors and parents themselves and not with some alt right raving fanatic like yourself.
Reply
#95
(Feb 24, 2019 06:25 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Feb 24, 2019 05:43 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Feb 24, 2019 05:41 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:There are fetus "considered" non-viable that are capable of surviving, so it's just false that every such fetus is "doomed to die".

Very rare I'd say. Our medicine is advanced enough that doctors can now tell the difference between a viable and non-viable fetus. To say it isn't is just living in the dark ages.

If even one such baby dies of neglect it is infanticide. So now you're just arguing about how many infanticides you think are acceptable. Rare is not none.

And no, doctors are not omniscience wizards, capable of knowing every medical outcome. This is why there are "miraculous" recoveries and "mysterious" deaths. To believe otherwise is naive scientism and a willful ignorance of reality.

Fortunately such delicate decisions remain with the doctors and parents themselves and not with some alt right raving fanatic like yourself.

IOW, you have such faith in the infallibility of doctors, that you don't care if viable children are killed. Your faith overrides morality.

And preemptively deciding a child's fate is not letting the facts speak for themselves by actually attempting the minimum standard of care afforded any other patient.

But what can be expected of an immoral moron who can't even distinguish between the right and the alt-right.
Reply
#96
(Feb 24, 2019 06:25 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Feb 24, 2019 05:43 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Feb 24, 2019 05:37 AM)Leigha Wrote: I think it comes down to what we determine as a quality of life. I’ve seen children with terrible deformities yet they have a bright spirit and they teach everyone around them so much. I understand life or death situations, and needing to make that call, but I do think it will create a slippery slope.

For one, taking the mothers psychological/emotional health out of the equation would remove a lot of ethical gray areas. And treating all children as equally deserving of the same standard of care, which may include life support until more doctors can be consulted and verify a prognosis, would go a long way to remove the medical gray areas. Then it becomes the family's decision to take them off life support, instead of deciding to preemptively withhold available care.

(Feb 24, 2019 05:41 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:There are fetus "considered" non-viable that are capable of surviving, so it's just false that every such fetus is "doomed to die".

Very rare I'd say. Our medicine is advanced enough that doctors can now tell the difference between a viable and non-viable fetus. To say it isn't is just living in the dark ages.

If even one such baby dies of neglect it is infanticide. So now you're just arguing about how many infanticides you think are acceptable. Rare is not none.

And no, doctors are not omniscience wizards, capable of knowing every medical outcome. This is why there are "miraculous" recoveries and "mysterious" deaths. To believe otherwise is naive scientism and a willful ignorance of reality.

Fortunately such delicate decisions remain with the doctors and parents themselves and not with some alt right raving fanatic like yourself.
 (bold by me)

And the government. Which is what makes it all seem like a political agenda, with women and children being used as the pawns.
Reply
#97
Quote:And the government. Which is what makes it all seem like a political agenda, with women and children being used as the pawns.

No..not the government. The government would be involved if there was a law against it. There is no law against it, despite the efforts to pass blanket "protect the fetus" laws. Unviable fetuses are allowed to die. It's the way it's always been. It's the way things remain.
Reply
#98
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addres...rtion-law/

New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”


Slippery slopes.
Reply
#99
(Feb 24, 2019 07:58 AM)Leigha Wrote: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addres...rtion-law/

New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”


Slippery slopes.

All those factors are involved in the judgment, not just mental. It's still far better that the doctors determine what endangers the health of the mother than having some govt defining it for us.
Reply
(Feb 24, 2019 07:45 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:And the government. Which is what makes it all seem like a political agenda, with women and children being used as the pawns.

No..not the government. The government would be involved if there was a law against it. There is no law against it, despite the efforts to pass blanket "protect the fetus" laws. Unviable fetuses are allowed to die. It's the way it's always been. It's the way things remain.
The government is, here, involved in removing more barriers to killing human life. Just like how the government would be involved if it made killing adults legal, thereby tacitly approving. It's an abdication of the government's duty to protect life, as per life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Refusing to protect viable babies (late-term and born alive) is a cynical ploy by Democrats to garner votes at the expense of what only two seconds ago everyone agreed was human life (viable or born). Some doctors have been letting babies born alive die from neglect without any penalties, and it sounds like you're happy with that status quo.

And as already shown, "non-viable" is not a definite, objective determination. It's a judgement call that should involve multiple doctors and no preemptive death sentence from withheld care.


(Feb 24, 2019 08:01 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Feb 24, 2019 07:58 AM)Leigha Wrote: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addres...rtion-law/

New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”


Slippery slopes.

All those factors are involved in the judgment, not just mental. It's still far better that the doctors determine what endangers the health of the mother than having some govt defining it for us.

The law doesn't state that all those factors must be taken into account, as it reads "medical judgment may [expressing a possibility or permission] be exercised in the light of all factors". There is no "must" there.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)