Poll: Would You Abort?

[cjmtfd102401]

No. I had a miscarriage almost 1 year ago and it tore me to pieces I would never take the life of my child.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: moshquerade
late term abortion if it got to that point, or would that change your decision?

It might. Psychologically, it's a lot easier to recommend abortion early in a pregnancy. 88% of abortions are done before the 13th week; only 1.5% are done after the 21st week.

The difference between first and second trimester abortions is the difference between recommending the abortion of this vs. this. It has a lot to do with your view on life and when it begins (which I think is a personal decision).

what if your wife was opposed to your recommendation? would it be cause for divorce if she had the child?

Of course not.

now this is going to get real personal. i can understand if you don't want to answer. what if you were that down's syndrome fetus? what would you want to happen to you?

impossible to answer, and you know that.

Now why would you ask such a ludicrously irrelevant question?

How is that impossible to answer?
It's totally relevant and, I'll answer it right now. Of course, I would want to live.

Its completely irrelavent because its impossible to be "in the shoes" of a fetus.

Its like asking, put yourself in the shoes of a guy who was in a coma for 40 years and is about to get his life support cut. How would you feel at that exact moment?

Can you answer that question? No. Because a fetus or a persona who was in a coma for 40 years isn't able to make the thought processes necessary to thinking, "I don't really want to die"

I was probably pining him down with that question, and that is why i said i could understand if he didn't want to answer. But still, there is nothing wrong with looking at things from the other side of the fence. Sometimes it widens your perspective.

You didn't pin him down to anything. You simply used a rhetorical gambit without any basis in society. Zinfamous gave you your answer, "Of course, I would want to live" and tenshodo13 unmasked how ludicrous your question really was.

It doesn't widen anyone's perspective. It's a tautology. Stop rhetorically patting yourself on the back.

But, hey, want to play along? OK.

What if you were the fetus Pol Pot or Stalin and you knew it? Guess what? You'd still want to live.

Now, what if you were the pregnant mother of Stalin (and you knew it), but you didn't find out until your third trimester.

What would you do.

Does everyone see how EASY yet pointless these exercises in rhetorical diversion are?

So, seriously, Mosh, you have Josef S. in the oven and it's your third trimester and you just found out, what would you do?

Ok, let's make it easier. It's your third trimester and you're carrying Bernie Madoff. What would you do?

Even easier. Third trimester, and you know the baby you're carrying will, 30 years from now, put a guy in a wheelchair for life in a drunken bar fight. What would you do?

Well?

Edit: Does everyone see what divesionary crap such questions are?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: moshquerade
late term abortion if it got to that point, or would that change your decision?

It might. Psychologically, it's a lot easier to recommend abortion early in a pregnancy. 88% of abortions are done before the 13th week; only 1.5% are done after the 21st week.

The difference between first and second trimester abortions is the difference between recommending the abortion of this vs. this. It has a lot to do with your view on life and when it begins (which I think is a personal decision).

what if your wife was opposed to your recommendation? would it be cause for divorce if she had the child?

Of course not.

now this is going to get real personal. i can understand if you don't want to answer. what if you were that down's syndrome fetus? what would you want to happen to you?

impossible to answer, and you know that.

Now why would you ask such a ludicrously irrelevant question?

How is that impossible to answer?
It's totally relevant and, I'll answer it right now. Of course, I would want to live.

Its completely irrelavent because its impossible to be "in the shoes" of a fetus.

Its like asking, put yourself in the shoes of a guy who was in a coma for 40 years and is about to get his life support cut. How would you feel at that exact moment?

Can you answer that question? No. Because a fetus or a persona who was in a coma for 40 years isn't able to make the thought processes necessary to thinking, "I don't really want to die"

I was probably pining him down with that question, and that is why i said i could understand if he didn't want to answer. But still, there is nothing wrong with looking at things from the other side of the fence. Sometimes it widens your perspective.

You didn't pin him down to anything. You simply used a rhetorical gambit without any basis in society. Zinfamous gave you your answer, "Of course, I would want to live" and tenshodo13 unmasked how ludicrous your question really was.

It doesn't widen anyone's perspective. It's a tautology. Stop rhetorically patting yourself on the back.

But, hey, want to play along? OK.

What if you were the fetus Pol Pot or Stalin and you knew it? Guess what? You'd still want to live.

Now, what if you were the pregnant mother of Stalin (and you knew it), but you didn't find out until your third trimester.

What would you do.

Does everyone see how EASY yet pointless these exercises in rhetorical diversion are?

So, seriously, Mosh, you have Josef S. in the oven and it's your third trimester and you just found out, what would you do?

Ok, let's make it easier. It's your third trimester and you're carrying Bernie Madoff. What would you do?

Even easier. Third trimester, and you know the baby you're carrying will, 30 years from now, put a guy in a wheelchair for life in a drunken bar fight. What would you do?

Well?

Edit: Does everyone see what divesionary crap such questions are?

EXACTLY. Those arguments mean absolutely nothing. Mosh is just picking emotional points until she can make a baseless, pointless attempt at putting someone into a corner.

This is as dumb as the anti-stem cell crowd's arguments.

I see your point.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: moshquerade
late term abortion if it got to that point, or would that change your decision?

It might. Psychologically, it's a lot easier to recommend abortion early in a pregnancy. 88% of abortions are done before the 13th week; only 1.5% are done after the 21st week.

The difference between first and second trimester abortions is the difference between recommending the abortion of this vs. this. It has a lot to do with your view on life and when it begins (which I think is a personal decision).

what if your wife was opposed to your recommendation? would it be cause for divorce if she had the child?

Of course not.

now this is going to get real personal. i can understand if you don't want to answer. what if you were that down's syndrome fetus? what would you want to happen to you?

impossible to answer, and you know that.

Now why would you ask such a ludicrously irrelevant question?

How is that impossible to answer?
It's totally relevant and, I'll answer it right now. Of course, I would want to live.

Its completely irrelavent because its impossible to be "in the shoes" of a fetus.

Its like asking, put yourself in the shoes of a guy who was in a coma for 40 years and is about to get his life support cut. How would you feel at that exact moment?

Can you answer that question? No. Because a fetus or a persona who was in a coma for 40 years isn't able to make the thought processes necessary to thinking, "I don't really want to die"

I was probably pining him down with that question, and that is why i said i could understand if he didn't want to answer. But still, there is nothing wrong with looking at things from the other side of the fence. Sometimes it widens your perspective.

You didn't pin him down to anything. You simply used a rhetorical gambit without any basis in society. Zinfamous gave you your answer, "Of course, I would want to live" and tenshodo13 unmasked how ludicrous your question really was.

It doesn't widen anyone's perspective. It's a tautology. Stop rhetorically patting yourself on the back.

But, hey, want to play along? OK.

What if you were the fetus Pol Pot or Stalin and you knew it? Guess what? You'd still want to live.

Now, what if you were the pregnant mother of Stalin (and you knew it), but you didn't find out until your third trimester.

What would you do.

Does everyone see how EASY yet pointless these exercises in rhetorical diversion are?

So, seriously, Mosh, you have Josef S. in the oven and it's your third trimester and you just found out, what would you do?

Ok, let's make it easier. It's your third trimester and you're carrying Bernie Madoff. What would you do?

Even easier. Third trimester, and you know the baby you're carrying will, 30 years from now, put a guy in a wheelchair for life in a drunken bar fight. What would you do?

Well?

Edit: Does everyone see what divesionary crap such questions are?

EXACTLY. Those arguments mean absolutely nothing. Mosh is just picking emotional points until she can make a baseless, pointless attempt at putting someone into a corner.

This is as dumb as the anti-stem cell crowd's arguments.

I see your point.

I'd rather jpeyton spoke for himself, but it looks like he decided not to answer. which is fine, i totally gave him that option.

It seems I struck a nerve with a few of his fans, not my intention. My intention was to see things from the other side. If you want to close that side off in life then what is that called? being one sided?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
It seems I struck a nerve with a few of his fans, not my intention. My intention was to see things from the other side. If you want to close that side off in life then what is that called? being one sided?

I didn't answer because I said that something that isn't self-aware has no stake in being born or not.

Perknose and TP aren't fans, and I didn't make this thread to pick a fight. I just wanted to see what people think about abortion in this particular hypothetical case, which will undoubtedly become more common in the future as science develops newer, more accurate ways to screen for various conditions.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: RaistlinZ

Originally posted by: xSauronx
I dont think Down's Syndrome is necessarily bad enough to warrant an abortion, but I wouldnt blame anyone if they went that way.

Now I know this guy who had a pregnant wife, and it was discovered that the fetus had a serious defect or disease or something, and doctors repeatedly suggested abortion because the likelihood of the child living even *days* was very low.

They wouldnt, on religious grounds, and the wife went through with the pregnancy. The baby survived less than 24 hours. I would have pushed for abortion strongly on that for certain.

I bet they're still glad they didn't choose abortion. At least they were able to let the child go on God's terms, not some doctor's.

And did they pay for the tens of thousands of extra dollars in tests and care that allowing this doomed birth to go forward cost, or did their insurance company, meaning, finally, everyone else?

In order to still make a profit, did their insurance company DENY someone else an expensive experimental procedure which might at least have had a chance of saving that person's life?

NONE of these decisions are made in some personal, zero cost, praise Yahweh vacuum.

Aww, Perky, you can't place a monetary value on a life without seriously degrading society. That old person who needs $60,000 in treatment to make it through next week but then may have another two or three years to live, do they get treated? What about the 50 year old with a heart attack requiring high cost emergency room care? What about me, who can live probably another 60 years with treatment or maybe 15 without, but where the treatment (without insurance) is $35-75k a year?

Who makes the determination on which life has more value? How do you get job training for a role where you play God?

And the problem is, you are in SERIOUS denial and lying to yourself if you don't think that, we, society, do it every single day, all day long.

Road and traffic engineers place an actual monetary value on a human life, so that they can arrive at the most safety for the buck, which nevertheless absolutely means that some will die who did not have to die if the cost were no object.

The EPA, and we, who give it only X amount of funding, do it in every ACCEPTABLE level of pollution that we allow, which, again, means that some human beings will die who did not have to die if the cost were no object.

WE, and YOU are not exempt my friend, consign some people to die because we do NOT have infinite resources. Just because you can't SEE these people right in front of you and haven't given them a name, does not mean that this does not happen.

When you allow that family the otherwise loving opportunity to bring their DOOMED TO A SHORT AND PAINFUL life child to term, the money that society, that YOU and I decide to spend on that is taken away, like I said, perhaps from a person who could have had a chancy but experimental medical procedure and lived.

YOU CAN'T PRETEND THAT YOU DON'T MAKE THESE CHOICES when you help structure a society this way and not that way, because . . . you . . . do.

You are absolutely right. But what you overlook is that the decisions we make about human life can only be made based on what is in front of us at a given moment. A doctor faced with a doomed child will still work to save that child. A doctor faced with a doomed child and a severely injured child at a chance of life will work to save the child with a chance of life. Just because the second scenario exists doesn't mean that the doctor in the first scenario shouldn't try to help the doomed child.

Parents deciding whether to give their child a slim chance at life are not obligated to let their child die in order to give another sick child a better chance at life. Their moral obligation as human beings is to do the best with the situation in front of them. The moral obligation of the insurance provider allocating funds is to give the most children the most chance of life.

Simply because we have a societal cost-benefit analysis of human life does not absolve us on more personal and immediate levels from doing our utmost for those in front of us. Society naturally boils down people to numbers and dollars anyway; it is the humanity of individual and personal stories that provides society its conscience and keeps those numbers and dollars working for the benefit of the sick, the friendless and the poor.

Society is, by necessity, calculating. Individuals should be, by nature, caring.

And this is coming from a capitalist bitch, no less.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: moshquerade
late term abortion if it got to that point, or would that change your decision?

It might. Psychologically, it's a lot easier to recommend abortion early in a pregnancy. 88% of abortions are done before the 13th week; only 1.5% are done after the 21st week.

The difference between first and second trimester abortions is the difference between recommending the abortion of this vs. this. It has a lot to do with your view on life and when it begins (which I think is a personal decision).

what if your wife was opposed to your recommendation? would it be cause for divorce if she had the child?

Of course not.

now this is going to get real personal. i can understand if you don't want to answer. what if you were that down's syndrome fetus? what would you want to happen to you?

impossible to answer, and you know that.

Now why would you ask such a ludicrously irrelevant question?

How is that impossible to answer?
It's totally relevant and, I'll answer it right now. Of course, I would want to live.

Its completely irrelavent because its impossible to be "in the shoes" of a fetus.

Its like asking, put yourself in the shoes of a guy who was in a coma for 40 years and is about to get his life support cut. How would you feel at that exact moment?

Can you answer that question? No. Because a fetus or a persona who was in a coma for 40 years isn't able to make the thought processes necessary to thinking, "I don't really want to die"

I was probably pining him down with that question, and that is why i said i could understand if he didn't want to answer. But still, there is nothing wrong with looking at things from the other side of the fence. Sometimes it widens your perspective.

You didn't pin him down to anything. You simply used a rhetorical gambit without any basis in society. Zinfamous gave you your answer, "Of course, I would want to live" and tenshodo13 unmasked how ludicrous your question really was.

It doesn't widen anyone's perspective. It's a tautology. Stop rhetorically patting yourself on the back.

But, hey, want to play along? OK.

What if you were the fetus Pol Pot or Stalin and you knew it? Guess what? You'd still want to live.

Now, what if you were the pregnant mother of Stalin (and you knew it), but you didn't find out until your third trimester.

What would you do.

Does everyone see how EASY yet pointless these exercises in rhetorical diversion are?

So, seriously, Mosh, you have Josef S. in the oven and it's your third trimester and you just found out, what would you do?

Ok, let's make it easier. It's your third trimester and you're carrying Bernie Madoff. What would you do?

Even easier. Third trimester, and you know the baby you're carrying will, 30 years from now, put a guy in a wheelchair for life in a drunken bar fight. What would you do?

Well?

Edit: Does everyone see what divesionary crap such questions are?

EXACTLY. Those arguments mean absolutely nothing. Mosh is just picking emotional points until she can make a baseless, pointless attempt at putting someone into a corner.

This is as dumb as the anti-stem cell crowd's arguments.

I see your point.

I'd rather jpeyton spoke for himself, but it looks like he decided not to answer. which is fine, i totally gave him that option.

It seems I struck a nerve with a few of his fans, not my intention. My intention was to see things from the other side. If you want to close that side off in life then what is that called? being one sided?

There is no "side".

A fetus cannot think about these high level ideas, therefore the argument has absolutely no merit.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Perknose in the last batch of threads I find myself agreeing with you almost every time.

You just told the truth.

An over abundance of "precious life" people are in this thread that ignore the cold hard facts of society.

I have personally watched people suffer because they couldn't afford or insurance wouldn't cover costly treatments. It's made me sick but it's the world we live in.

Sometimes people spend 100's of thousands of dollars on futile pre-natal, NICU care that would be enough to save maybe 100 lives. They are tough decisions but obviously those who can afford the care get it and those who can't do not...

I wish we could all have top notch medical care, but as I also know, society is not going to make those choices.

I'll agree with you on this. Perfect world care is not available, and I'm opposed to even attempting to make it available because it will inevitably fail and cause all sorts of other problems on the side. However, I do think that it is the right and responsibility of each person to seek the best for their family and friends. The best may not always be available, and societal rules will set that availability appropriately, but it is the persistent seeking and the importance bestowed upon THIS life, at THIS time, that awards dignity to individual lives.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: xSauronx
I dont think Down's Syndrome is necessarily bad enough to warrant an abortion, but I wouldnt blame anyone if they went that way.

Now I know this guy who had a pregnant wife, and it was discovered that the fetus had a serious defect or disease or something, and doctors repeatedly suggested abortion because the likelihood of the child living even *days* was very low.

They wouldnt, on religious grounds, and the wife went through with the pregnancy. The baby survived less than 24 hours. I would have pushed for abortion strongly on that for certain.

Why? It brought them comfort to know that they did everything they could to give that child a chance at life, and it cost them nothing but the physical impact of bringing a child to term. They may even have been comforted somewhat for having the opportunity to hold their child in their arms. Why, for people that experienced life in that particular way, would you push them to abort?

but the thing is, they never could do anything to give that child a chance at life. They falsely believed such would happen.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they were wrong to carry through with it--that's their decision. But when faced with a known still birth/child that will die within a few days, it becomes, in my mind, masochistic to bring to term.

In these cases though, there is often a threat to the mother, if not terminal but the potential for sterility in the future. That risk is in no way worth bringing a terminal illness into the world. You effectively end the potential for life, which is anathema to the "right to life under all circumstances" idea.

I think, specific to the bolded circumstances, that this is highly personal and variable. For some couples having the chance to see and hold their child to say goodbye might be comforting. For others, it might bring more pain to an already unbearably painful situation. I think the question of "which is less painful" is s something that nobody but the parents involved can answer.

I agree.

 

[ch33kym0use]

I'm gonna have to abort the mouse trap.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Perknose in the last batch of threads I find myself agreeing with you almost every time.

You just told the truth.

An over abundance of "precious life" people are in this thread that ignore the cold hard facts of society.

I have personally watched people suffer because they couldn't afford or insurance wouldn't cover costly treatments. It's made me sick but it's the world we live in.

Sometimes people spend 100's of thousands of dollars on futile pre-natal, NICU care that would be enough to save maybe 100 lives. They are tough decisions but obviously those who can afford the care get it and those who can't do not...

I wish we could all have top notch medical care, but as I also know, society is not going to make those choices.

I'll agree with you on this. Perfect world care is not available, and I'm opposed to even attempting to make it available because it will inevitably fail and cause all sorts of other problems on the side. However, I do think that it is the right and responsibility of each person to seek the best for their family and friends. The best may not always be available, and societal rules will set that availability appropriately, but it is the persistent seeking and the importance bestowed upon THIS life, at THIS time, that awards dignity to individual lives.

Aye...

Many a hard night has come from lack of proper medical care. It's hard to imagine until you see someone working overtime trying to pay medical bills, unable to get good credit because they get sent to collections. Socialized medicine is not the answer, and may even reduce quality of care for many, but something better should be out there. People need help.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: moshquerade
late term abortion if it got to that point, or would that change your decision?

It might. Psychologically, it's a lot easier to recommend abortion early in a pregnancy. 88% of abortions are done before the 13th week; only 1.5% are done after the 21st week.

The difference between first and second trimester abortions is the difference between recommending the abortion of this vs. this. It has a lot to do with your view on life and when it begins (which I think is a personal decision).

what if your wife was opposed to your recommendation? would it be cause for divorce if she had the child?

Of course not.

now this is going to get real personal. i can understand if you don't want to answer. what if you were that down's syndrome fetus? what would you want to happen to you?

impossible to answer, and you know that.

Now why would you ask such a ludicrously irrelevant question?

How is that impossible to answer?
It's totally relevant and, I'll answer it right now. Of course, I would want to live.

Its completely irrelavent because its impossible to be "in the shoes" of a fetus.

Its like asking, put yourself in the shoes of a guy who was in a coma for 40 years and is about to get his life support cut. How would you feel at that exact moment?

Can you answer that question? No. Because a fetus or a persona who was in a coma for 40 years isn't able to make the thought processes necessary to thinking, "I don't really want to die"

I was probably pinning him down with that question, and that is why i said i could understand if he didn't want to answer. But still, there is nothing wrong with looking at things from the other side of the fence. Sometimes it widens your perspective.

As far as the guy in a coma for 40 years who is about to get his life support cut off... if it were me I'd hope they let me go years before that. See, we can put ourselves in other's shoes.

TO be honest...I wouldn't want my insurance to go up for some strange family to keep their loved one on life support for years and years and years....and that's primarily because I would not want myself on life support.

eating out of tube, to me, is not life.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: moshquerade
late term abortion if it got to that point, or would that change your decision?

It might. Psychologically, it's a lot easier to recommend abortion early in a pregnancy. 88% of abortions are done before the 13th week; only 1.5% are done after the 21st week.

The difference between first and second trimester abortions is the difference between recommending the abortion of this vs. this. It has a lot to do with your view on life and when it begins (which I think is a personal decision).

what if your wife was opposed to your recommendation? would it be cause for divorce if she had the child?

Of course not.

now this is going to get real personal. i can understand if you don't want to answer. what if you were that down's syndrome fetus? what would you want to happen to you?

impossible to answer, and you know that.

Now why would you ask such a ludicrously irrelevant question?

How is that impossible to answer?
It's totally relevant and, I'll answer it right now. Of course, I would want to live.

Its completely irrelavent because its impossible to be "in the shoes" of a fetus.

Its like asking, put yourself in the shoes of a guy who was in a coma for 40 years and is about to get his life support cut. How would you feel at that exact moment?

Can you answer that question? No. Because a fetus or a persona who was in a coma for 40 years isn't able to make the thought processes necessary to thinking, "I don't really want to die"

I was probably pinning him down with that question, and that is why i said i could understand if he didn't want to answer. But still, there is nothing wrong with looking at things from the other side of the fence. Sometimes it widens your perspective.

As far as the guy in a coma for 40 years who is about to get his life support cut off... if it were me I'd hope they let me go years before that. See, we can put ourselves in other's shoes.

TO be honest...I wouldn't want my insurance to go up for some strange family to keep their loved one on life support for years and years and years....and that's primarily because I would not want myself on life support.

eating out of tube, to me, is not life.

Indeed. Thank goodness for a living will.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

I'd rather jpeyton spoke for himself, but it looks like he decided not to answer. which is fine, i totally gave him that option.

It seems I struck a nerve with a few of his fans, not my intention. My intention was to see things from the other side. If you want to close that side off in life then what is that called? being one sided?

So now I'm a jpeyton fan? who knew?

So, where's my tshirt? what are the membership dues? when should I expect the next newsletter????

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: RaistlinZ

Originally posted by: xSauronx
I dont think Down's Syndrome is necessarily bad enough to warrant an abortion, but I wouldnt blame anyone if they went that way.

Now I know this guy who had a pregnant wife, and it was discovered that the fetus had a serious defect or disease or something, and doctors repeatedly suggested abortion because the likelihood of the child living even *days* was very low.

They wouldnt, on religious grounds, and the wife went through with the pregnancy. The baby survived less than 24 hours. I would have pushed for abortion strongly on that for certain.

I bet they're still glad they didn't choose abortion. At least they were able to let the child go on God's terms, not some doctor's.

And did they pay for the tens of thousands of extra dollars in tests and care that allowing this doomed birth to go forward cost, or did their insurance company, meaning, finally, everyone else?

In order to still make a profit, did their insurance company DENY someone else an expensive experimental procedure which might at least have had a chance of saving that person's life?

NONE of these decisions are made in some personal, zero cost, praise Yahweh vacuum.

Aww, Perky, you can't place a monetary value on a life without seriously degrading society. That old person who needs $60,000 in treatment to make it through next week but then may have another two or three years to live, do they get treated? What about the 50 year old with a heart attack requiring high cost emergency room care? What about me, who can live probably another 60 years with treatment or maybe 15 without, but where the treatment (without insurance) is $35-75k a year?

Who makes the determination on which life has more value? How do you get job training for a role where you play God?

And the problem is, you are in SERIOUS denial and lying to yourself if you don't think that, we, society, do it every single day, all day long.

Road and traffic engineers place an actual monetary value on a human life, so that they can arrive at the most safety for the buck, which nevertheless absolutely means that some will die who did not have to die if the cost were no object.

The EPA, and we, who give it only X amount of funding, do it in every ACCEPTABLE level of pollution that we allow, which, again, means that some human beings will die who did not have to die if the cost were no object.

WE, and YOU are not exempt my friend, consign some people to die because we do NOT have infinite resources. Just because you can't SEE these people right in front of you and haven't given them a name, does not mean that this does not happen.

When you allow that family the otherwise loving opportunity to bring their DOOMED TO A SHORT AND PAINFUL life child to term, the money that society, that YOU and I decide to spend on that is taken away, like I said, perhaps from a person who could have had a chancy but experimental medical procedure and lived.

YOU CAN'T PRETEND THAT YOU DON'T MAKE THESE CHOICES when you help structure a society this way and not that way, because . . . you . . . do.

You are absolutely right. But what you overlook is that the decisions we make about human life can only be made based on what is in front of us at a given moment. A doctor faced with a doomed child will still work to save that child.

stop right there.

--You watch too much TV.

 

[Damn Dirty Ape]

Yes.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: moshquerade
late term abortion if it got to that point, or would that change your decision?

It might. Psychologically, it's a lot easier to recommend abortion early in a pregnancy. 88% of abortions are done before the 13th week; only 1.5% are done after the 21st week.

The difference between first and second trimester abortions is the difference between recommending the abortion of this vs. this. It has a lot to do with your view on life and when it begins (which I think is a personal decision).

what if your wife was opposed to your recommendation? would it be cause for divorce if she had the child?

Of course not.

now this is going to get real personal. i can understand if you don't want to answer. what if you were that down's syndrome fetus? what would you want to happen to you?

impossible to answer, and you know that.

Now why would you ask such a ludicrously irrelevant question?

How is that impossible to answer?
It's totally relevant and, I'll answer it right now. Of course, I would want to live.

Its completely irrelavent because its impossible to be "in the shoes" of a fetus.

Its like asking, put yourself in the shoes of a guy who was in a coma for 40 years and is about to get his life support cut. How would you feel at that exact moment?

Can you answer that question? No. Because a fetus or a persona who was in a coma for 40 years isn't able to make the thought processes necessary to thinking, "I don't really want to die"

I was probably pinning him down with that question, and that is why i said i could understand if he didn't want to answer. But still, there is nothing wrong with looking at things from the other side of the fence. Sometimes it widens your perspective.

As far as the guy in a coma for 40 years who is about to get his life support cut off... if it were me I'd hope they let me go years before that. See, we can put ourselves in other's shoes.

TO be honest...I wouldn't want my insurance to go up for some strange family to keep their loved one on life support for years and years and years....and that's primarily because I would not want myself on life support.

eating out of tube, to me, is not life.

Indeed. Thank goodness for a living will.

Even those can be trumped with a few zealous crazies and a morally corrupt lawyer.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: RaistlinZ

Originally posted by: xSauronx
I dont think Down's Syndrome is necessarily bad enough to warrant an abortion, but I wouldnt blame anyone if they went that way.

Now I know this guy who had a pregnant wife, and it was discovered that the fetus had a serious defect or disease or something, and doctors repeatedly suggested abortion because the likelihood of the child living even *days* was very low.

They wouldnt, on religious grounds, and the wife went through with the pregnancy. The baby survived less than 24 hours. I would have pushed for abortion strongly on that for certain.

I bet they're still glad they didn't choose abortion. At least they were able to let the child go on God's terms, not some doctor's.

And did they pay for the tens of thousands of extra dollars in tests and care that allowing this doomed birth to go forward cost, or did their insurance company, meaning, finally, everyone else?

In order to still make a profit, did their insurance company DENY someone else an expensive experimental procedure which might at least have had a chance of saving that person's life?

NONE of these decisions are made in some personal, zero cost, praise Yahweh vacuum.

Aww, Perky, you can't place a monetary value on a life without seriously degrading society. That old person who needs $60,000 in treatment to make it through next week but then may have another two or three years to live, do they get treated? What about the 50 year old with a heart attack requiring high cost emergency room care? What about me, who can live probably another 60 years with treatment or maybe 15 without, but where the treatment (without insurance) is $35-75k a year?

Who makes the determination on which life has more value? How do you get job training for a role where you play God?

And the problem is, you are in SERIOUS denial and lying to yourself if you don't think that, we, society, do it every single day, all day long.

Road and traffic engineers place an actual monetary value on a human life, so that they can arrive at the most safety for the buck, which nevertheless absolutely means that some will die who did not have to die if the cost were no object.

The EPA, and we, who give it only X amount of funding, do it in every ACCEPTABLE level of pollution that we allow, which, again, means that some human beings will die who did not have to die if the cost were no object.

WE, and YOU are not exempt my friend, consign some people to die because we do NOT have infinite resources. Just because you can't SEE these people right in front of you and haven't given them a name, does not mean that this does not happen.

When you allow that family the otherwise loving opportunity to bring their DOOMED TO A SHORT AND PAINFUL life child to term, the money that society, that YOU and I decide to spend on that is taken away, like I said, perhaps from a person who could have had a chancy but experimental medical procedure and lived.

YOU CAN'T PRETEND THAT YOU DON'T MAKE THESE CHOICES when you help structure a society this way and not that way, because . . . you . . . do.

You are absolutely right. But what you overlook is that the decisions we make about human life can only be made based on what is in front of us at a given moment. A doctor faced with a doomed child will still work to save that child.

stop right there.

--You watch too much TV.

Sigh. Not talking about a hospital ER where there are established procedures for time usage and evaluative processes, which are established by societal prioritization. I'm talking kid bleeding to death on the side of an accident scene, a kid that's been passed out for several minutes from choking in a restaurant and has probably suffered brain damage, etc. I wasn't clear, sorry.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

You are absolutely right. But what you overlook is that the decisions we make about human life can only be made based on what is in front of us at a given moment. A doctor faced with a doomed child will still work to save that child.

stop right there.

--You watch too much TV.

Sigh. Not talking about a hospital ER where there are established procedures for time usage and evaluative processes, which are established by societal prioritization. I'm talking kid bleeding to death on the side of an accident scene, a kid that's been passed out for several minutes from choking in a restaurant and has probably suffered brain damage, etc. I wasn't clear, sorry.

Well, that isn't really a doomed patient....

 

[rasczak]

no i wouldn't abort. i've had the pleasure of working with many wonderful DS kids. you're just taking the easy way out and that sucks for the kid.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: rasczak
no i wouldn't abort. i've had the pleasure of working with many wonderful DS kids. you're just taking the easy way out and that doesn't matter to the unaware fetus.

Fixed.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I'm glad I'm not in this situation.

Interesting that its the mother who makes the final decision and that the father has no legal say though. Perhaps evolution should have led humans to have three genders in order to make a viable democratic family? Need a decision made, all 3 members vote, 2/3 wins.

Yeah, that does suck doesn't it? I like the idea of a 3rd gender!

 

[paulney]

Ugh. When my wife was pregnant with our first kid, the doctor miscalculated the actual start of the pregnancy, and prescribed the test 1.5 or 2 weeks early. The test (which is based on the levels of certain markers) came back positive. We both were thrown into a world of shock. I remember sitting down and staring at a wall asking myself: 'Why us? Why did this have to happen to us?'. And then the office calls us back in an hour or so and says: 'sorry, guys, the test was too early. Come back in 2 weeks.'

We came back in 2 weeks, and everything was tip top. I will never forget that moment.

 

[rh71]

I can't remember if it was a mandatory test. But I think the fact that the mother goes through with this test is a sign that they are willing to abort.

 

[LS21]

im for abortion in the 1st trimester for any reason... so down's? sure