| Subject: Killing Babies and other death related ideas |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/28/02 8:58pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "I'll discuss it with you (why don't we kill our babies?)" on 02/28/02 5:57pm
>
>Anyway, I digress... back to my original idea. Would
>it not be better if humans could take a good look at a
>deformed or retarded child and say, "Hey, this person
>shouldn't add his genes to the gene pool. We also
>shouldn't spend thousands upon thousands of dollars
>taking care of a person who can never contribute to
>society." Interestingly, students with special needs
>get far more money than average or above-average
>students, and which students are more likely to give
>something back to the world? Is it so far from our
>minds to gently take the lives of people whose lives
>may be very low quality anyway? Can we not look at
>someone whose mother was a crack addict and say, "Why
>let this person endure what is most likely going to be
>a horrible life?" We have people with six thousand
>dollar chairs who go to special tax-funded schools
>where their main goal for the year is to learn to hold
>a ball in their hands. While these people are nice to
>be around for their innocence, are we really doing
>them a favor by keeping them alive?
With these points I agree. The only thing I can find that separates a human from any other animal is that they seem to be more self-concious, can plan for the future, and can state the will they desire to occur. Yet, these things don't take place immeadiately. In fact, if we are to judge as human when these things occur, surely more can be said for an animal that is more concious of itself at a much earlier stage in its development, for the human fetus lags slowly behind even the development of a fish.
Hence, if a fetus gets a right to life by being human, and what defines a human is self-conciousness, then a fish that is more concious of itself earlier on in its life has an equal right to life that a human does.
As far as babies go, a standard decision in the medical field is to let certain children die. The means by which these children must perish is by removal of tube feeding which brings on starvation, or they must be consumed by an infection that the doctor refuses to prescribe an antibiotic for. Doctors cannot legally assist an infant to a less painful death, so these are the only recourses they are left. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow doctors to administer what we would have the compassion to do for an animal? Does a newborn baby have more conciousness, more ability to see the future, and the ability to state its will anymore than a self-aware fish? I think not.
On euthanasia, often the sick are not so afraid of death itself, but rather the path they must take to get there. There are many insidious diseases that take hold and lay waste to the body's systems and cause a great deal of anguish, and proceed rather lethargically. Wouldn't it make more sense to give these people the peace of mind that if the pain becomes too unbearable they can choose to opt out? Should we be so righteous that we deny people their rights to die a dignified death? Do any of us really want to be in a home soiling ourselves at the mercy of whomever wants to take care of us? I think the answers to these questions are straight forward. If a person wants to have assisted relief when it comes to death, we should honor that right. Many have an emphasis that we cannot violate a human's right to life, but they overlook the notion of their rights when it comes to death. Clearly, a persons own will should carry more weight than what anyone else wants concerning their own life.
>
>Although I do not support a Hitleresque idea of
>eugenics, I do think that we should not allow everyone
>to pass on their genes. We should not be after white
>Anglo-saxon offspring, but we should be after
>increasingly intelligent, physically fit offspring.
>What I'm suggesting should probably be a whole new
>thread in itself. Perhaps I will start one.
I agree with this as well. Hitlerian policy was aimed more at saving money, resources, and having more abled body sympathsizers with his war. There is a distinction between his policies, and ethical decisions concerning the overall quality of life.
>
>Anyway, Damoclese, I agree with your points. As in
>many things, we have a sort of "feeling" that human
>life is sacred, but who can offer proof of such a
>proposition? I think if we could gather our strength
>and make some tough decisions, the entire human race
>would ultimately benefit, as would the entire earth.
I also concur. I don't know why sanctity of life is held at such a high standard. I've never heard anyone justify it either.
Damoclese
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 