Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 95 (8831 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2018 4:19 PM
258 online now:
jar, kjsimons, NoNukes, PaulK, Rrhain (5 members, 253 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,286 Year: 5,109/29,783 Month: 1,041/1,467 Week: 238/462 Day: 25/42 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Legal Death, Legal Life
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1901
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 31 of 40 (827737)
01-31-2018 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
01-30-2018 10:49 AM


Re: waiting for new member approval ...
This is such a difficult question.

One of my friends (still a virgin at the time) got gang raped by at least 5 men. She was 18 and poor.

She fell pregnant because of that. As abortion was illegal in this country and she was a staunch Catholic, at that time, she went to Europe early in her pregnacy for a safe abortion. It cost her family basically a year's income. After that, she started studying at a Uni and today she is quite wealthy.

She regrets the abortion, but realises that it was to her best interest. Was she wrong or right to have the abortion?

On the other side, one of my uncles (80 years old) decided that he's had enough suffering. He gathered enough strengh to pull his own plug. It was right next to his bed.

So, in the end, it's up to the individual to decide where life begins or ends.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2018 10:49 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Stile, posted 01-31-2018 9:26 AM Pressie has not yet responded
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2018 10:41 AM Pressie has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3142
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 32 of 40 (827742)
01-31-2018 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Pressie
01-31-2018 7:06 AM


Re: waiting for new member approval ...
Pressie writes:

She regrets the abortion, but realizes that it was to her best interest. Was she wrong or right to have the abortion?

Nobody knows. There's not enough information available to tell.
Some of the information is completely impossible to find out.
That's why it's such a tough decision... if it were easy to know, it wouldn't be difficult.

Some ideas to flesh out the point I'm making:

-If a non-abortion had of resulted in a more-painful death (or life) of the fetus/baby anyway... then the abortion was a good thing for the baby
-If a non-abortion had of resulted in a good/wonderful life of the fetus/baby... then the abortion was a bad thing for the baby

-If the abortion resulted in her life having the ability to make other people's lives happy/better (possibly even other children-of-hers) in a way she would not be able to if she had the abortion... then the abortion was a good thing for these other people (and possibly her other children)
-If the abortion resulted in her life not having the ability to make other people's lives happy/better... then the abortion was a bad thing for those other people.

-If the abortion allowed her life to be happier/better... then the abortion was a good thing for her
-If the abortion led to her life being worse... then the abortion was a bad thing for her

...

This list is not exhaustive. I'm sure there are plenty of other effects that could be listed, I'm just showing how complicated the "was it good or bad?" question is.

On top of all those possibilities... it needs to be understood that each item can quite possibly be independent from the others.
That is, it could be that the abortion was good for the baby (would have died worse anyway)... but bad for her (her life turned out worse because of the abortion). Or any other combination... maybe good for her, and good for others around her, and good for her future children (who might not exist without the abortion occurring)... but bad for the aborted fetus/baby. How do you weigh those against each other? How can you do it when all the "future possibilities" can't possibly be known at the time when the decision has to be made??

Such weighing is required to know if the abortion "is good or bad."
But such weighing is impossible at the time the decision must be made... because it all happens in the future. Some of the important results may not be known until decades into the future.

I hope this is enough to show that a single, easy answer for "Was she wrong or right to have the abortion?" is simply not available.
It's one of those super-hard decisions where we just have to do whatever we think is best based upon the information (and whatever future-prediction-abilities we have) at the time.

THAT's why I think the decision is up to the woman-in-question, and no one else.
She is free to search out information from any and all sources (family? friends? anywhere?) but... even THAT is up to her.

We can all judge her as much as we'd like.
But, to me, I think anyone judging harshly on someone making such a decision (forced into it or not) speaks a hell of a lot more about the character of that judgey-person than it does about the woman-in-question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Pressie, posted 01-31-2018 7:06 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3142
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 33 of 40 (827743)
01-31-2018 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
01-30-2018 10:49 AM


Re: waiting for new member approval ...
RAZD writes:

Apparently the person who posted what is quoted in Message 28 on facebook has applied for membership here but has not been confirmed.

Oh really?

Did Percy implement such a thing?
Maybe.
Or maybe you're getting the run-around...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2018 10:49 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2018 10:35 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 34 of 40 (827744)
01-31-2018 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Stile
01-31-2018 10:14 AM


Re: waiting for new member approval ...
Oh really?

Did Percy implement such a thing?
Maybe.
Or maybe you're getting the run-around ...

Well that was my thought so I messaged Percy and he said he reset her password
I also got an message from Moose on sending her an email

So apparently there is now an approval process.

?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Stile, posted 01-31-2018 10:14 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 35 of 40 (827746)
01-31-2018 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Pressie
01-31-2018 7:06 AM


individual choice
One of my friends (still a virgin at the time) got gang raped by at least 5 men. She was 18 and poor.

I know a friend that was raped and had an abortion. She said there was no way she was going to let that man's germ live. No regrets.

On the other side, one of my uncles (80 years old) decided that he's had enough suffering. He gathered enough strengh to pull his own plug. It was right next to his bed.

Both my parents had "Do not resuscitate" provisions in their living wills. They were in their 90's.

So, in the end, it's up to the individual to decide where life begins or ends.

Or their legal surrogate when they are incapable.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Pressie, posted 01-31-2018 7:06 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Pressie, posted 02-01-2018 7:24 AM RAZD has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1901
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 36 of 40 (827779)
02-01-2018 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
01-31-2018 10:41 AM


Re: individual choice
RAZD writes:

Both my parents had "Do not resuscitate" provisions in their living wills. They were in their 90's.

I have a "turn off the machines when I'm a veggie op anyone else has to clean my diapers" clause in my will. I'm in my fifties. Not the same words, but that's the idea. I don't speak Legalise.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2018 10:41 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2018 10:19 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 37 of 40 (827782)
02-01-2018 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Pressie
02-01-2018 7:24 AM


Legal Life/Death based on medical science and ethics
RAZD writes:

Both my parents had "Do not resuscitate" provisions in their living wills. They were in their 90's.

I have a "turn off the machines when I'm a veggie op anyone else has to clean my diapers" clause in my will. I'm in my fifties. Not the same words, but that's the idea. I don't speak Legalise.

Indeed. The point we are making is that we have choice in how to terminate our lives, that this choice is based on medical knowledge and on ethics considerations for the patients. These ethical considerations have been developed over many years, and includes considerations for people of different religions to have different views.

One of the main benefits of this definition is that it allows for organ transplants to be made while the pertinent cells are still living and usable. This provides benefits for society.

The legal standard of death is very clear - from What is the medical definition of death? (click):

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
§ 1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustained either
(1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or
(2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead.
A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

From this definition it is then possible to define when human life commences that would encompass those same medical and ethical considerations:

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF LIFE
§ 1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who has sustained either:
(1) irreversible instigation of circulatory and respiratory functions, and
(2) irreversible instigation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

Note that this is derived logically from the legal definition of {death} to the form of the legal definition of {NOT death = life}, and thus it is legally applicable and morally, culturally as acceptable as the universal definition of death.

This also allows for transplants (stem cells) before this threshold is reached, should that be the wishes of the woman.

By these two bookends, we then define "Legal Human Life" to be

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF HUMAN LIFE
§ 1. [Determination of Human Life.] A human DNA based organism that is capable of
(1) fully operational circulatory and respiratory functions, and
(2) fully operational functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem,
- is a living/breathing functional human being.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Pressie, posted 02-01-2018 7:24 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2018 10:45 AM RAZD has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13756
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 38 of 40 (827784)
02-01-2018 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
02-01-2018 10:19 AM


Re: Legal Life/Death based on medical science and ethics
quote:

Note that this is derived logically from the legal definition of {death} to the form of the legal definition of {NOT death = life}, and thus it is legally applicable and morally, culturally as acceptable as the universal definition of death.

That’s not strictly correct. You would do better to speak of reversal than logical negation. Your argument is - with the additional correction below - is defensible on those terms but it isn’t strictly logical as it stands. Instigation is the reverse of cessation but it isn’t the logical inverse.

In strict logic NOT (a OR b) = (NOT a) AND (NOT b)

You should also remove “irreversible” from your “determination of life” as it currently seems to mean that only immortals would be considered alive. (The “irreversible” in the determination of death means that it is impossible to restart the process. But obviously the determination of life should allow that it is possible to stop the processes)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2018 10:19 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2018 12:19 PM PaulK has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 39 of 40 (827798)
02-01-2018 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
02-01-2018 10:45 AM


Re: Legal Life/Death based on medical science and ethics
In strict logic NOT (a OR b) = (NOT a) AND (NOT b)

I thought that was what I had if we replace cumberson "NOT cessation" with instigation, the beginning of a functioning system rather than the termination of it.

You should also remove “irreversible” from your “determination of life” as it currently seems to mean that only immortals would be considered alive

Agreed. I think this has been raised before and I was lax to not update.

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF FUNCTIONAL BEGINNING
§ 1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who has sustained either:
(1) beginning of circulatory and respiratory functions, and
(2) beginning of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

... But obviously the determination of life should allow that it is possible to stop the processes)

At either end of the spectrum.

You start with a zygote, and the probability of it becoming a living breathing human is low. The probability improves as time passes and a miscarriage does not occur, until at birth and the first breath is taken (still births do occur).

The probability of revival is also related to time passed since life support was instigated, decreasing over time. You end with a cadaver, and the probability of revival is nil.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2018 10:45 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2018 12:46 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13756
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 40 of 40 (827800)
02-01-2018 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
02-01-2018 12:19 PM


Re: Legal Life/Death based on medical science and ethics
quote:

I thought that was what I had if we replace cumberson "NOT cessation" with instigation, the beginning of a functioning system rather than the termination of it.

Definitely not. Logical negation is not the reverse - it’s “everything else”. That’s required by the law of the excluded middle. After all, staying alive is not dying and even staying dead is not dying.

The reversal is what you want, but it’s not logical negation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2018 12:19 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018