The meaning of life and other ill sh!t

[Guardian]

A philosophically consistent mechanism for determining the beginning of human life might be using the opposite of the identified end of human life:
1. cessation of either circulatory & respiratory function OR 
2. cessation of brain activity.  
A logical starting point would be assuming human life begins at the opposite of defined human death.

So people who are on life support for 9 months or so aren’t a person anymore? Even if they come out of it?

[Guardian]

This is a stupid Bodn argument.

If we found a blade of grass in the universe it’d be life.

This is a subjective moral dilemma. I ask my religious friends where in the Bible it talks about abortion...the conversation goes off the subjective rails from there.

Not all life has value and value is a subjective opinion.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I’m glad your parents subjective opinion was that life was valuable.

[tac airlifter]

35 minutes ago, Guardian said:

So people who are on life support for 9 months or so aren’t a person anymore? Even if they come out of it?

Why would you think I meant that? The answer is no, I do not believe that nor do I think my statement you quoted implies such.

I won’t speculate on personhood, but if a human being medically dies when circulatory or brain function ceases, it’s logical to conclude they are alive when those functions begin.  Which happens in the first few weeks inside the womb.

[Guardian]

People who are on life support meet some or all of your definition. That’s why I ask.

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

People who are on life support meet some or all of your definition. That’s why I ask.

Alive on life support = alive.  There’s nothing in the definition that stipulates self sustaining respiration.  “Personhood” whatever that means is not something I even understand, much less have an opinion on.

[jazzdude]

A post of clarity in a sea of sport-bitching. I like this thinking.
Here's my problem with the discussion. Roe found that abortions were legal until 28 weeks, because that was the court-defined point of "viability." Ok, let's use that term/idea as the consistent standard.
To be logically consistent, pro-choice people should now be for restricting abortions after 22 weeks, because medicine has improved since 1973, and the data shows that babies are surviving at 22 weeks. Hell, one was just born at 21 weeks in MN, albeit it was a miracle.
The standard Roe sets is a sliding scale. As medicine improves, that number should keep going down. It could even theoretically go down to 1 day. Are abortion advocates going to hold that consistent "viability" standard if that happens? Hell no, because "viability" isn't really their argument.
The true argument is "choice." It boils down to this: My ability to live my life as I choose, without the responsibility of a child, is more important than the fetus' right to live.
Read that twice, and tell me that doesn't make you uneasy.
Idk what the answer is, but I can't support that argument.

BLUF: I want our laws and policy to err on the side of personal freedom and choice, particular on complex issues (such as abortion or gun control)

Your question is over simplistic. I'll admit though it's an uneasy question though, but that's good. It assumes that all people will change their life after having a child to raise that child and not neglect it. But that's not even the case today. You could threaten the selfish parent with fines or jail, but that doesn't solve the problem of a child being raised poorly or perhaps even abused, and even if they are removed from the bad parents, they'll enter the foster care system.

So here's some more uncomfortable questions.

So who pays to keep a very premature baby (20ish weeks) alive? It's only viable through medical advances and affected by the availability of the equipment and staff as well as an individual's ability to pay for that advanced care. Should the mother or father be forced to pay for that care of they didn't want the baby in the first place but was forced to deliver because abortion was made illegal? Or if the government (society) is willing to pay for an expensive NICU stay, why aren't we willing to pay for other healthcare later in life (like an aggressive cancer through no fault of the individual, treatment is expensive and if you don't have the money, it doesn't matter how good the medicine is because you don't have access to it).

This makes an unwanted child society's problem, and we don't have the drive/will to care for abandoned children at a larger scale. Do we give those kids free school lunch? What about access to medical care? How do we incentivize adoption, especially of kids that have significant medical out behavioral issues?

Many pro life advocates stop valuing life after birth, as shown by their stance on access to medical care, or school lunch subsidies (or rejecting benefactors that aren't the parents from paying off school lunch debts), or willingness to adopt/foster children. All of that under the guise of personal responsibility (which does exist to a certain extent no doubt, but there's also a social responsibility as well that often is ignored). Because if we take away the abortion choice of an individual, we have to replace that with societal support. Otherwise, that child will suffer, maybe throughout their life (it can be hard to dig out of a hole, especially if you start life already in a hole)

Some other uncomfortable questions:

What constitutes a medically necessary abortion? An outright ban on abortion *will* kill women. Who makes the decision then? What about if it's in a gray area where there's trades between the health outcomes for the mother vs the baby with no "right" answer?

Who pays for the expensive procedures that increase the odds of positive health outcomes, for either the mother or baby? Doctors, nurses, and medical staff do not week for free.

What about if the women is pregnant due to rape?

What if medicine identifies significant diseases in utero? If the baby will suffer and die shortly after birth, should it be brought to term? What if the parents don't have good insurance and will not be able to pay for treatment during the baby's short life, even if they expend all their savings and retirement accounts (which jeopardizes their life and retirement, putting additional stress on social systems as they get to retirement age)?

What about maternal care before the birth? Should things like prenatal vitamins be provided to pregnant women to avoid adverse outcomes for the baby? (For example, supplementing with folate is recommended to avoid spina bifida in the baby). What about routine visits? What if the pregnancy is determined to be high risk to the mother or baby, who pays for the additional visits and specialist care?

What about normal expenses during and after pregnancy? If a mother can't work due to pregnancy, should they starve (bad outcome for the baby) or go into debt if they don't have access to paid short term or long term disability?

What if they aren't married to the father? Would the father of the child be responsible for reimbursing the government (or mother) for any support provided to the mother before birth?

Should the mother get any say in the matter? Often the arguments ignore the fact that the mother is also a person that is significantly impacted by pregnancy physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially, and is not just an incubator for a fetus.

On the other end of the problem, what do you think about the whole "poor women having babies to increase welfare payment?" Maybe they just really value life and won't have an abortion because they believe it is wrong/evil, and are doing the right thing by keeping the baby and raising it. Should the government force them to stop having sex? Or worse?

There's many other questions that touch the abortion question. Like I said in the other thread, I don't think abortion for personal convenience is right, but there's enough gray area or unanswered questions that there may be acceptable or even necessary reasons for abortion. Since that's the case, I would want our laws and policy to err on the side of personal freedom and choice.

Too often we focus on the 5-10% where the something (like freedom of choice) is abused, rather than the 90-95% when things work like intended for the reasons the flexibility was provided for.

[HossHarris]

I’ve yet to meet a violently pro-life individual that has adopted kids. 
 

im sure they exist … I just haven’t met one. 

[jazzdude]

People who are on life support meet some or all of your definition. That’s why I ask.

Is it murder to pull the plug on someone who is solely surviving based on life support equipment? Does that answer change if there are different levels of brain activity? Does it matter who pulls the plug? Or their reason for doing so?

What if the life support equipment keeping a brain dead patient alive is needed to keep a patient who is responsive alive? Remember, hospital resources are finite. (Though if you're rich enough, you can buy your own equipment and staff). And yes this question is relevant, because a trade is being made between patients, and sometimes at the extreme of one or the other (mother vs baby).

[di1630]

I’m glad your parents subjective opinion was that life was valuable.

Me too.

Another thing funny to me is he many people I’ve worked with who are staunchly anti-abortion but don’t even shrug when they drop a bomb or strafe “bad guys”

Because the bad guy doesn’t subjectively share their religious views...never mind his wife and 3 kids were just orphaned and he was just in the wrong place/wrong time.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Guardian]

Alive on life support = alive.  There’s nothing in the definition that stipulates self sustaining respiration.  “Personhood” whatever that means is not something I even understand, much less have an opinion on.

Which matches the definition of an embryo as well I believe. Thanks for your response.

[Guardian]

Is it murder to pull the plug on someone who is solely surviving based on life support equipment? Does that answer change if there are different levels of brain activity? Does it matter who pulls the plug? Or their reason for doing so?

What if the life support equipment keeping a brain dead patient alive is needed to keep a patient who is responsive alive? Remember, hospital resources are finite. (Though if you're rich enough, you can buy your own equipment and staff). And yes this question is relevant, because a trade is being made between patients, and sometimes at the extreme of one or the other (mother vs baby).

And what if in all the cases above the person has a chance or does recover but needs that aide to live?

[Guardian]

Me too.

Another thing funny to me is he many people I’ve worked with who are staunchly anti-abortion but don’t even shrug when they drop a bomb or strafe “bad guys”

Because the bad guy doesn’t subjectively share their religious views...never mind his wife and 3 kids were just orphaned and he was just in the wrong place/wrong time.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Murder and killing are different words for a reason. When you murder someone you are killing them but just because you kill someone doesn’t make it murder.

[jazzdude]

And what if in all the cases above the person has a chance or does recover but needs that aide to live?

You assume there are enough resources for both patients, when that may not be the case, and a choice has to be made as to who gets treated and who does not.

Some hospitals may keep them on as long as they are getting paid, or until that equipment is needed for someone with a better chance of living unassisted. This is the whole point of triage, and how money (in how our healthcare system is funded) can buy you options.

Maybe there's another hospital that can take a transfer, but if not, how do you choose who gets the necessary equipment? First come, first serve? The one who can pay for the treatment? The one without a criminal record? (This was also the rationale behind the COVID "flatten the curve" effort, so as not to have to make those decisions on who lives or dies due to limited medical resources, and not just for Covid cases, but any case requiring ICU care)

Do you stretch resources thin where possible even if it means reduced care for everyone (including reducing recovery odds for some patients) in return for caring for more people? How long should the hospital staff surge? (This is the same problem the AF has with pilot manning, standards start getting lowered, and so does performance and safety, leading to more accidents...)

Again, resources are finite, and that can force hard decisions beyond idealized positions on an issue.

[Alpharatz]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

Murder and killing are different words for a reason. When you murder someone you are killing them but just because you kill someone doesn’t make it murder.

A Pal of mine from HS 's old man was a bombardier in the 8th AF...He never got over it...for that matter my old man drank himself out of Guadalcanal...figured he would never get to Heaven..There's that pesky religion for ya...Another guy I know well came a mm of trigger away from shooting the wrong guy...still gets a wake up call time to time...

[Guardian]

You assume there are enough resources for both patients, when that may not be the case, and a choice has to be made as to who gets treated and who does not.

Some hospitals may keep them on as long as they are getting paid, or until that equipment is needed for someone with a better chance of living unassisted. This is the whole point of triage, and how money (in how our healthcare system is funded) can buy you options.

Maybe there's another hospital that can take a transfer, but if not, how do you choose who gets the necessary equipment? First come, first serve? The one who can pay for the treatment? The one without a criminal record? (This was also the rationale behind the COVID "flatten the curve" effort, so as not to have to make those decisions on who lives or dies due to limited medical resources, and not just for Covid cases, but any case requiring ICU care)

Do you stretch resources thin where possible even if it means reduced care for everyone (including reducing recovery odds for some patients) in return for caring for more people? How long should the hospital staff surge? (This is the same problem the AF has with pilot manning, standards start getting lowered, and so does performance and safety, leading to more accidents...)

Again, resources are finite, and that can force hard decisions beyond idealized positions on an issue.

Not sure what you are talking about with a decision between two people. I was simply asking if a person required life support for oh say 9 months and had no brain waves, etc but recovered was that person no longer a person for some, all, or none of that 9 months.

[Guardian]

A Pal of mine from HS 's old man was a bombardier in the 8th AF...He never got over it...for that matter my old man drank himself out of Guadalcanal...figured he would never get to Heaven..There's that pesky religion for ya...Another guy I know well came a mm of trigger away from shooting the wrong guy...still gets a wake up call time to time...

Both subjective stories. While I feel for them, and wish them well, I’m speaking of objectively. Just pure definitions of the words murder and kill. It has nothing to do with religion but if you want to go there, religion makes a distinction between murder and killing. And I don’t know which religion the man you spoke of belonged to. Christianity does not teach that.

[Prozac]

7 hours ago, Guardian said:

Which matches the definition of an embryo as well I believe. Thanks for your response.

No. Not even close. How do you figure a fully developed human being sustained by life support is the same as a fifty celled organism that is incapable of thought, sensory experience, or any multitude of functions or attributes that most of us would consider defining for human beings? 

[HossHarris]

4 hours ago, Guardian said:

Not sure what you are talking about with a decision between two people. I was simply asking if a person required life support for oh say 9 months and had no brain waves, etc but recovered was that person no longer a person for some, all, or none of that 9 months.

People without brain activity don’t recover. 

[busdriver]

3 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

People without brain activity don’t recover. 

It's a Festivus miracle!

[Guardian]

People without brain activity don’t recover. 

True. Bad example. Argument still holds for someone on life support, in a coma, non responsive, etc.

[Guardian]

No. Not even close. How do you figure a fully developed human being sustained by life support is the same as a fifty celled organism that is incapable of thought, sensory experience, or any multitude of functions or attributes that most of us would consider defining for human beings? 

The point was both people on life support and embryos in the womb require life support. One is accepted by all as a person even though they are supported in life not of their own body. The other isn’t universally accepted as a person. I’m not comparing an embryo to all human life. The embryo is capable of thought, sensory experience and the other multitude of other functions an attributes. But maybe just not for 9 months. The person on life support might have that very same experience or it might even take longer. That’s my point. Both potentially have the same attributes, abilities, functions, etc. and both are being sustained not of themselves.

[frog]

On 5/11/2021 at 4:35 PM, HossHarris said:

I’ve yet to meet a violently pro-life individual that has adopted kids. 
 

im sure they exist … I just haven’t met one. 

That’s me! 

[lloyd christmas]

Manipulating words or language is a key tool in promoting agendas.  There are lots of examples of this like global warming/climate change, gun control/gun safety, woman/birthing people or words used to intentionally confuse the topic of gender.  The abortion argument is no different.  You can see it in words or phrases like unwanted pregnancy vs abortion or any of the terms used to describe life other than baby or human, etc.  Pro-abortion people know that abortion takes a life.  They just choose to direct the conversation somewhere else because most people don’t have the courage or intellectual honesty to just say that they believe in abortion for convenience whether it kills a baby or not.  I’d have more respect for their argument if they did.

Arguments like rape, incest or even the health of the mother are just distractions.  The vast vast number of abortions are simply out of convenience.  And with the progress made in medicine, the baby is delivered early or operated on in the womb.   I’ve got a buddy who has a daughter who was born at 24 weeks due to the mother’s pre-eclampsia.  She’s a normal healthy 6 year old now.  I never really gave much thought to abortion one way or another until I saw her in the NICU.  Seeing that completely changed my view.  

[HossHarris]

2 hours ago, frog said:

That’s me! 

Great!

 

money where your mouth is …. Being the change you want to see and all that. 
 

nice to hear about actions rather than just words. 

[Prosuper]

Psalm 139:13-16 

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.