You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 06, 2016, 10:07:32 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: This disturbed me  (Read 8947 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #225 on: January 16, 2014, 12:32:17 PM »
Oh. As I said, I would follow the request.

In that mindset, my questions still stand.

My answer would be - simple politeness.  Side with the family all you want (frankly, I do, both in this case and the New York case).  I'm fairly sure references to 'her body' weren't objected to, so it's really no effort to avoid a word that has visceral connotations.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #226 on: January 16, 2014, 12:36:43 PM »
Further to Chaoslord's points, it seems you're tying yourself in knots a little.

If husband is the next of kin and has rights relating to her body, that implies she's dead, right?  In which case her stated wishes not to be kept alive simply do not apply here.  If you believe there is a violation of her "rights" not to be kept alive on a machine, then she is alive and Mr Munoz has no rights to the body or to decide what to do with the foetus (or at least through this route, as I say there is presumably some mechanism for who can give consent for a termination of a mentally incapable mother)

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #227 on: January 16, 2014, 12:43:14 PM »
Further to Chaoslord's points, it seems you're tying yourself in knots a little.

If husband is the next of kin and has rights relating to her body, that implies she's dead, right?  In which case her stated wishes not to be kept alive simply do not apply here.  If you believe there is a violation of her "rights" not to be kept alive on a machine, then she is alive and Mr Munoz has no rights to the body or to decide what to do with the foetus (or at least through this route, as I say there is presumably some mechanism for who can give consent for a termination of a mentally incapable mother)

Precisely what I've been trying to say! Thank you for putting it so concisely.

As it happens I think their may be a legal channel for who can give consent for termination of a mentally incapable mother, but it's a fairly long and involved process and that's when the family are the direct caretakers or have had the mother placed in care of their own accord. This case complicates that because the hospital is in possession of the body and are the care takers; the family isn't "vested" in terms of caring for body and thus their legal right to terminate mother/fetus is tenuous.

Point is, if they pursue the legal route, it's probably going to take about as long as it would to find out if the fetus is viable anyway.

Morally, I must maintain the absolute right a woman has to dispose of her body as she, and only she, sees fit, and seeing as how her explicit will cannot be established, I feel it would be immoral of anyone to presume to know what she would do in this situation for herself.

Offline Rogue

  • The Bratling ~ her Mx ~ they/them unless other pronouns/gender are specified please~
  • Champion
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: delens solem lunam facti sunt ei
  • ~Edenmon Master~ ~GenderFluid~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #228 on: January 16, 2014, 12:48:29 PM »
My answer would be - simple politeness.  Side with the family all you want (frankly, I do, both in this case and the New York case).  I'm fairly sure references to 'her body' weren't objected to, so it's really no effort to avoid a word that has visceral connotations.

Okay Oni. :)

I'm not saying the fetus is a person, I'm not saying it has rights, and I'm not saying it is definitively alive.

I'm saying that it has the potential for rights, and that the next-of-kin's rights to dispose of the body are not absolute. Mr. Munoz's rights are established either through property rights to her body as a corpse which the state has every right to intervene in as a matter of public health and safety, or he has certain rights to make decisions in regards to his wife's medical treatment, which do not extend to terminating a pregnancy. To be clear, you can't pull the plug without terminating the pregnancy, that is inescapable, however you want to define that as 'natural' or (not) an abortion.

If you're saying that the argument that the fetus should be given a chance is invalid because "Life sucks, shit happens, it's brutal an cruel" then tell me why that doesn't apply more to those of us to whom life has been shitty and sucky and brutal and cruel, than the fetus who may very well wind up having a perfectly pleasant existence. Saying that somethings are simply "NOT meant to be" is not an argument, not unless you can flesh out what exactly it is you're appealing to in terms of 'meaning' (state of nature, moral absolutes, etc.).

Furthermore, I can argue from moral grounds exactly why a fetus has the right to potential for life, on the same basis that I assert a moral absolute against the killing of any living person: the potential for that person to do good with what remains of their life. That is to say, it is wrong to kill a living person because that person has not yet fulfilled the potential of the remainder of their life, and it is wrong for you to decide in their place to prematurely terminate their existence. This moral standard can be just as readily applied to a fetus since it has the same potential for a live yet unfulfilled, and it's termination would be equally immoral.

That said, there are of course other practical matters of survival and security which take precedence ahead of an absolute standard for the right to life (in the already living or a fetus), which is why legally we make a distinction between killing in at time of war, killing in self-defense, manslaughter, and of course, abortion.

So, to my mind, you have to provide either some practical reason why we shouldn't wait for the fetus to prove viable/terminal, or else some moral reason justifying the termination of life that would apply to a living person and not a fetus.

There is a very simple Ethical reason for why we shouldn't wait. A person's right to their body, something we afford people even after death in reverence to every person who chooses whether or not to be an organ donor, should never be infringed upon. Something that is unwanted, an accident from a broken condom or the .01% fail rate of most birth controls, should not be forced upon someone, much less someone who wishes to be dead and cannot even deliver the baby naturally.

The fact that there is a fetus is not important. The woman has a right to their body. Simple as that. If it is the woman's decision to die, it is the woman's decision to die and if the doctor does not wish to participate in that, demand to change to a doctor that will fulfill their obligation to the woman and let her die. Since it is the law that's the issue here, change the law that's taking away a person's right.

Precisely what I've been trying to say! Thank you for putting it so concisely.

As it happens I think their may be a legal channel for who can give consent for termination of a mentally incapable mother, but it's a fairly long and involved process and that's when the family are the direct caretakers or have had the mother placed in care of their own accord. This case complicates that because the hospital is in possession of the body and are the care takers; the family isn't "vested" in terms of caring for body and thus their legal right to terminate mother/fetus is tenuous.

Point is, if they pursue the legal route, it's probably going to take about as long as it would to find out if the fetus is viable anyway.

Morally, I must maintain the absolute right a woman has to dispose of her body as she, and only she, sees fit, and seeing as how her explicit will cannot be established, I feel it would be immoral of anyone to presume to know what she would do in this situation for herself.

To be honest, if her family and husband are all in agreement of what she said in a verbal will, I see no issue with it. I see it as sloppy of her not to write such things down, to be honest. However, if she weren't pregnant, would the word of her husband and family be denied? If not, then it is unethical to not grant her the same right as if she were not pregnant.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #229 on: January 16, 2014, 12:59:08 PM »
Since it is the law that's the issue here, change the law that's taking away a person's right.


This is an entirely separate issue, but I found that line very interesting.  "The law that is taking away a person's right".  Where did they get that right from if not through the law?  What gives you rights if not a legal system?  I have the right to wear a yellow jumper because there's no law against it, if there were I would no longer have that right, surely?

As I say, its very much a side issue and I don't want to derail.  But I just found it an interesting thought.

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #230 on: January 16, 2014, 01:04:11 PM »
There is a very simple Ethical reason for why we shouldn't wait. A person's right to their body, something we afford people even after death in reverence to every person who chooses whether or not to be an organ donor, should never be infringed upon. Something that is unwanted, an accident from a broken condom or the .01% fail rate of most birth controls, should not be forced upon someone, much less someone who wishes to be dead and cannot even deliver the baby naturally.

The fact that there is a fetus is not important. The woman has a right to their body. Simple as that. If it is the woman's decision to die, it is the woman's decision to die and if the doctor does not wish to participate in that, demand to change to a doctor that will fulfill their obligation to the woman and let her die. Since it is the law that's the issue here, change the law that's taking away a person's right.

See, on this ethical standard we are in agreement, but there is the problem that Mrs. Munoz's wishes on what to happen to her in death can only be established through hearsay. We have only the next-of-kin's word to presume she would want to be taken off life support and it may be overly cynical of me, but I feel the need to question their objectivity in the matter. Furthermore, we have additional hearsay from a friend of the family with knowledge of the pregnancy that Mrs. Munoz expressed a wish to carry the baby to term.

Without a written will or express advance directives, we cannot establish what Mrs. Munoz will would be in this exact situation and thus any action on anyone's part to terminate her life or the pregnancy is a presumption of her will and a contravention of her rights.

Quote
To be honest, if her family and husband are all in agreement of what she said in a verbal will, I see no issue with it. I see it as sloppy of her not to write such things down, to be honest. However, if she weren't pregnant, would the word of her husband and family be denied? If not, then it is unethical to not grant her the same rights as if she were not pregnant.

If she weren't pregnant, there's legal precedent to support and every reason to assume that she would be taken off life-support according to her next-of-kin's wishes. There's something to be said I think for preserving that standard, but it's not a contravention of her rights if it is broken, but rather the next-of-kin's to demand certain medical treatment for a mentally incapable family member or the lack thereof (as would be the case here).

And even so, that right is not inviolable. As I pointed out, the remanding of a body into the custody of the next of kin can be delayed or even denied by the state for a multitude of reasons, primarily where public health is at risk or criminal proceedings are ongoing. Not saying that either of those in particular is in play here, but if forced to I could make a few arguments to that end. Suffice to say for now that the next-of-kin's rights are not so inviolable as the rights of the expecting mother.

Offline Rogue

  • The Bratling ~ her Mx ~ they/them unless other pronouns/gender are specified please~
  • Champion
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: delens solem lunam facti sunt ei
  • ~Edenmon Master~ ~GenderFluid~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #231 on: January 16, 2014, 01:14:35 PM »
See, on this ethical standard we are in agreement, but there is the problem that Mrs. Munoz's wishes on what to happen to her in death can only be established through hearsay. We have only the next-of-kin's word to presume she would want to be taken off life support and it may be overly cynical of me, but I feel the need to question their objectivity in the matter. Furthermore, we have additional hearsay from a friend of the family with knowledge of the pregnancy that Mrs. Munoz expressed a wish to carry the baby to term.

Without a written will or express advance directives, we cannot establish what Mrs. Munoz will would be in this exact situation and thus any action on anyone's part to terminate her life or the pregnancy is a presumption of her will and a contravention of her rights.

If she weren't pregnant, there's legal precedent to support and every reason to assume that she would be taken off life-support according to her next-of-kin's wishes. There's something to be said I think for preserving that standard, but it's not a contravention of her rights if it is broken, but rather the next-of-kin's to demand certain medical treatment for a mentally incapable family member or the lack thereof (as would be the case here).

And even so, that right is not inviolable. As I pointed out, the remanding of a body into the custody of the next of kin can be delayed or even denied by the state for a multitude of reasons, primarily where public health is at risk or criminal proceedings are ongoing. Not saying that either of those in particular is in play here, but if forced to I could make a few arguments to that end. Suffice to say for now that the next-of-kin's rights are not so inviolable as the rights of the expecting mother.

The problem I see arising now is one of the opposite however. A woman's written will states that she wishes to be taken off life support. However, she didn't know she was pregnant (or didn't have time to change it before her accident/whatever caused her to be in that state.) Following her will would be in direct violation of her wishes, though there would be no way to know that, other than the word of the husband or family. Would the doctors follow the written will or the word of the family?

Offline Iniquitous

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #232 on: January 16, 2014, 01:16:05 PM »
The dead mother.

Let me ask this. Say you want to become a parent but, alas, something happens that ends your life (for, sorry to say, but no brain activity = death no matter how you want to argue it. Dead, not coming back, worm food.) before you and your wife/girlfriend/whatever have a chance to conceive. Now, you have made it quite clear to your family that you, under no circumstances, wish to be kept alive on a machine should it be proven that there is no chance you will recover.

Now, you are, for all intents and purposes a body on a machine that is pumping air into your lungs and forcing your heart to continue beating. You - the part of you that makes you who you are - has check out. Gone. Now, under your argument of potential for life - you've got millions upon millions of chances for life in your body. Does that give the state the right to deny you your wishes for end of life? If so, your body just became a sperm bank to be kept on life support so long as the law sees fit. I mean, after all, every little sperm represents a new life yes? The same can be applied to a woman simply because she has thousands of eggs that represent the chance for life.

You are arguing on a slippery slope here. The "chance for life" is not a good argument cause it can be made in such an extreme fashion as to make all those times you've masturbated murder.

Simply fact. It is not a person. The mother made clear what she wanted done with her body to her family. The state has put itself into a bad situation by sticking it's nose into end of life decisions. They are trying to force the issue of personhood. No one deserves to be turned into a housing unit for the "potential of life" And quite frankly, I resent the fact that this hospital and state are turning this woman's body into a breeding cow. It is, without a doubt, disgusting.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #233 on: January 16, 2014, 01:20:17 PM »
Let me ask this. Say you want to become a parent but, alas, something happens that ends your life (for, sorry to say, but no brain activity = death no matter how you want to argue it. Dead, not coming back, worm food.) before you and your wife/girlfriend/whatever have a chance to conceive. Now, you have made it quite clear to your family that you, under no circumstances, wish to be kept alive on a machine should it be proven that there is no chance you will recover.

You have to choose one.

Offline Sabby

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #234 on: January 16, 2014, 01:24:41 PM »
You have my apologies as well if I was too flippant in my explanation, and thank you as well for the understanding.

No such apology is necessary :) You clarified simply and clearly. Corpse = offensive just was not clicking in my brain, and still isn't to a degree, so I could only conclude that the objection to the use of the word was that Pumpkin considered the woman to be alive. I see in hindsight that isn't apparent, and I need to clarify.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #235 on: January 16, 2014, 01:26:17 PM »
You have to choose one.

How hard is it to understand - no brain activity means end of life? The only reason there is a heartbeat is because a machine put on is forcing it to beat. A machine put on against the wishes of the deceased person.

Here - we will use my wishes for end of life here.

Should something happen, accident or medical condition, that renders my body with no brain activity and no chance of recovery, then under no circumstances should machines be used to continue life within my body.

Now you are arguing semantics. Everyone knows that the purpose of "life sustaining machines" is to force the body into pumping blood and beating the heart (keep the body alive) when the brain cannot do so.


Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #236 on: January 16, 2014, 01:35:53 PM »
Now, you are, for all intents and purposes a body on a machine that is pumping air into your lungs and forcing your heart to continue beating. You - the part of you that makes you who you are - has check out. Gone. Now, under your argument of potential for life - you've got millions upon millions of chances for life in your body. Does that give the state the right to deny you your wishes for end of life? If so, your body just became a sperm bank to be kept on life support so long as the law sees fit. I mean, after all, every little sperm represents a new life yes? The same can be applied to a woman simply because she has thousands of eggs that represent the chance for life.

You are arguing on a slippery slope here. The "chance for life" is not a good argument cause it can be made in such an extreme fashion as to make all those times you've masturbated murder.

I'll skip the obvious Monty Python skit, and only make a vague reference to blowjobs.

Now that that's out of the way, the difference is that sperm cells and ovum are not fertilized.  They don't even have enough chromosomal material to make a viable organism until that happens.  Sperm by itself = no chance for life.  Egg by itself = no chance for life.  Sperm + egg = the first, barest, tenuous possibility of a chance for life.  (Still quite a ways to go before actual viability, though.)

Offline MKz

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #237 on: January 16, 2014, 01:42:31 PM »
You say that "by the rules of logic and reason" but I'm wondering what precisely that reasoning is? Are you appealing to a state of nature in which the mother's death would almost certainly result in the death of a fetus? As I believe I made clear to Iniquitous Opheliac, that is a loosing battle on all counts.

If your argument is that their are certain inviolable principles in the face of technological advancement, I must ask that you enumerate them, as whether or not your claim are 'harsh' is not the issue, but whether they can be logically established as a reasonable grounds for moral judgement and practically applicable in society.

As for what the government can and can't do in this situation, I must reiterate that the government is perfectly within legal precedent to withhold release of a body (or else to protect the sovereignty of the person's rights) in contradiction to the wishes of the family for reasons of health and safety. The family's wishes in this case are intangible, personal beliefs, grounded in grief and sentiment, and while I have no doubt that I might feel similarly in their situation, they cannot be relied upon to make an objective decision regarding the potential life of the fetus, and seeing as how said fetus's life purely objective (it will either prove viable, or expire within the next several weeks) it would seem that the government (really the Hospital) is simply preventing any rash decisions from being made.


You kind of missed my point. I do not speak from the perspective of the laws and reasoning of society, but from the perspective of nature. What the hospital is doing defies the will of the family and the individual at question as well, so aside from the fact that this whole thing is unnatural, I personally see it as a separate will of the system itself that should have no will of its own. I personally think this is wrong, also, I also.consider this a case of "over humanism" as I call it. But then again, this is just me..
[/quote]

Offline Iniquitous

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #238 on: January 16, 2014, 01:48:24 PM »
I'll skip the obvious Monty Python skit, and only make a vague reference to blowjobs.

Now that that's out of the way, the difference is that sperm cells and ovum are not fertilized.  They don't even have enough chromosomal material to make a viable organism until that happens.  Sperm by itself = no chance for life.  Egg by itself = no chance for life.  Sperm + egg = the first, barest, tenuous possibility of a chance for life.  (Still quite a ways to go before actual viability, though.)

Sperm and egg have the "potential" for life. Keep a dead male body on machines in order to harvest the sperm. Aka - make the body a sperm back. Keep a dead female body on machines to harvest the eggs. Aka - make the body an egg bank. Keep a dead woman who has an non viable fetus inside of her on machines to harvest a viable fetus - aka make the body a brood mare.

It's all the same and it is disgusting.

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #239 on: January 16, 2014, 01:54:50 PM »
The problem I see arising now is one of the opposite however. A woman's written will states that she wishes to be taken off life support. However, she didn't know she was pregnant (or didn't have time to change it before her accident/whatever caused her to be in that state.) Following her will would be in direct violation of her wishes, though there would be no way to know that, other than the word of the husband or family. Would the doctors follow the written will or the word of the family?

I think I see what you're saying, and I think ethically there is something wrong with terminating life support (and the fetus) in that case, but legally they'd be on much firmer ground. Since there's an explicit statement of will one way and only hearsay in the other, it seems to me that the issue is no longer the fetus, but of upholding the greater standard of jurisprudence in support of the written will.

So to my mind, it's only because there is no other explicit standard of the (soon-to-be) deceased's will to which we can apply that the fetus becomes a factor. I would still morally disapprove of the termination of the pregnancy, but be firmly in favor of terminating life support for more practical implications.

The dead mother.

Let me ask this. Say you want to become a parent but, alas, something happens that ends your life (for, sorry to say, but no brain activity = death no matter how you want to argue it. Dead, not coming back, worm food.) before you and your wife/girlfriend/whatever have a chance to conceive. Now, you have made it quite clear to your family that you, under no circumstances, wish to be kept alive on a machine should it be proven that there is no chance you will recover.

Now, you are, for all intents and purposes a body on a machine that is pumping air into your lungs and forcing your heart to continue beating. You - the part of you that makes you who you are - has check out. Gone. Now, under your argument of potential for life - you've got millions upon millions of chances for life in your body. Does that give the state the right to deny you your wishes for end of life? If so, your body just became a sperm bank to be kept on life support so long as the law sees fit. I mean, after all, every little sperm represents a new life yes? The same can be applied to a woman simply because she has thousands of eggs that represent the chance for life.

You are arguing on a slippery slope here. The "chance for life" is not a good argument cause it can be made in such an extreme fashion as to make all those times you've masturbated murder.

Simply fact. It is not a person. The mother made clear what she wanted done with her body to her family. The state has put itself into a bad situation by sticking it's nose into end of life decisions. They are trying to force the issue of personhood. No one deserves to be turned into a housing unit for the "potential of life" And quite frankly, I resent the fact that this hospital and state are turning this woman's body into a breeding cow. It is, without a doubt, disgusting.

Ah, I see where what you're saying and you've misunderstood what I mean by 'potential life'. I did not mean the potential to 'be' a life, but the potential to have a 'life'. Individual spermatoza and eggs do not fall under the moral absolute I am upholding because there exists at best only half the potential for them to be alive. I mean, physically speaking, sperm don't become people, eggs don't become people; sperm + egg becomes fetus is what becomes a person.

I'm not arguing that anything that has a chance at life deserves the chance to become a person, I'm arguing that anything which has the potential to live be given it. The fetus has the potential to grow into a human being. Individual sperm and eggs are a step removed and their existence is essentially at an end when the fetus is formed, so they do not in and of themselves have that potential. A sperm is a cell, an egg is a cell, just like every other cell in your body. A fetus is a collection of cells that has a function and purpose beyond simply the maintenance of your own body (which is why I think you consider it, not wrongly, to be akin to a parasite).

Hope I cleared that up, but now moving on to your other arguments.

Legally speaking, a person is not dead until there has been a declaration of death. There hasn't been one, so stop trying to say this is black and white in anything resembling a legal sense of it.

If you're not appealing to a legal basis, I can make all sorts of arguments on metaphysical grounds establishing either the fetus or the brain-dead Mrs. Munoz as alive.

I must also reiterate: We do not know she is brain-dead. That is hearsay based on the testimony of the family. I am willing for the sake of argument at times to consider her as such, but until you produce an official statement, press release, or confirmed news source to the effect that she is in fact brain-dead, I suggest you take a step back from that particular issue.

@MKz
Quote
You kind of missed my point. I do not speak from the perspective of the laws and reasoning of society, but from the perspective of nature. What the hospital is doing defies the will of the family and the individual at question as well, so aside from the fact that this whole thing is unnatural, I personally see it as a separate will of the system itself that should have no will of its own. I personally think this is wrong, also, I also.consider this a case of "over humanism" as I call it. But then again, this is just me.

My apologies on that count, but please, don't make this just about your opinion. You have claims, you have reasons for making them do endeavor to explain them as I assure you I am open to the idea I might be wrong, as at the start of this debate I was very much firmly on the side of the family.

Sperm and egg have the "potential" for life. Keep a dead male body on machines in order to harvest the sperm. Aka - make the body a sperm back. Keep a dead female body on machines to harvest the eggs. Aka - make the body an egg bank. Keep a dead woman who has an non viable fetus inside of her on machines to harvest a viable fetus - aka make the body a brood mare.

It's all the same and it is disgusting.

It's not all the same. No one is suggesting we keep her on life support indefinitely, and sperm and eggs are as Oniya and I have both pointed out, not viable in their own right as potential human beings. There existence ends as the fetus's existence begins and only the fetus has that potential.

Besides, just because you find it disgusting doesn't mean it isn't potentially moral tenable. I find incest disgusting but have no ethical grounds on which to deem it immoral.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2014, 02:15:10 PM by chaoslord29 »

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #240 on: January 16, 2014, 01:55:43 PM »
Sperm and egg have the "potential" for life. Keep a dead male body on machines in order to harvest the sperm. Aka - make the body a sperm back. Keep a dead female body on machines to harvest the eggs. Aka - make the body an egg bank. Keep a dead woman who has an non viable fetus inside of her on machines to harvest a viable fetus - aka make the body a brood mare.

It's all the same and it is disgusting.

This is a good point.  For those who are advocating that she be kept "alive" on machines for the purpose of incubating a fetus--well, where does it end?  Could a woman be kept "alive" to harvest her eggs?  Or a man his sperm?  And who decides?  The State?  And by what standard?

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #241 on: January 16, 2014, 02:05:12 PM »
How hard is it to understand - no brain activity means end of life? The only reason there is a heartbeat is because a machine put on is forcing it to beat. A machine put on against the wishes of the deceased person.

But this is, as has been pointed out numerous times before, exactly the point.  "Death", as it is relevant to this discussion, is a precisely defined legal term.  You seem to vary between whether you consider this woman dead - as you have stated a few times - or alive - as is relevant to her end of life wishes.  Once again, until and unless she is dead, the husband has no rights.  If she is dead, her wishes are no longer relevant.  You can have the cake, or you can eat it.

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #242 on: January 16, 2014, 02:05:42 PM »
For those who are advocating that she be kept "alive" on machines for the purpose of incubating a fetus--well, where does it end? 

It ends when someone has explicit advanced directives for just such a situation and with the repeal of this Texas State Law.

Quote
Could a woman be kept "alive" to harvest her eggs?  Or a man his sperm?

No, because those are not in and of themselves potential human beings, only half a potential human being at best. Sperm and eggs are cells which perform a function just like any other in an individuals body, whereas a fetus is separate in function and potential in a way unlike any given organ, tissue or other collection of cells.

Quote
And who decides?  The State?  And by what standard?
The State by virtue of representative democratic legislation to reflect the otherwise divided will of their constituents as checked by the ruling of judicial institutions, by the standard they deem most relevant.

For the purposes of this debate I would refer you to my previous standard for the immorality of premature termination of life based on the potential for all lives to achieve good for themselves and others. Essentially, the same reason I oppose the Death Penalty (in addition to the idea the punitive justice is immoral).

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #243 on: January 16, 2014, 02:06:32 PM »
Also, as a point of reference, all of the oocytes that a human being will produce are present at birth.   It would be far less expensive to simply remove the ovaries.  Even in males, the quality of the gametes decreases with advancing age, and there is an increasing risk of chromosomal defects.

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #244 on: January 16, 2014, 02:08:47 PM »
Also, as a point of reference, all of the oocytes that a human being will produce are present at birth.   It would be far less expensive to simply remove the ovaries.  Even in males, the quality of the gametes decreases with advancing age, and there is an increasing risk of chromosomal defects.

Just like Brave New World! Man, to my mind that's an infinitely preferable solution to any of this messiness.

Offline MKz

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #245 on: January 16, 2014, 02:35:28 PM »

@MKz
My apologies on that count, but please, don't make this just about your opinion. You have claims, you have reasons for making them do endeavor to explain them as I assure you I am open to the idea I might be wrong, as at the start of this debate I was very much firmly on the side of the family.

[/quote]

As I said, it is my opinion and I am not forcing it on anyone, but rather suggesting a different point of view.

Ps: sorry , my phone is horrible with editing long texts..

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #246 on: January 16, 2014, 09:37:52 PM »

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #247 on: January 17, 2014, 10:11:52 AM »
Just found this.  If it has been posted already I apologize.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/16/22330010-texas-judge-recuses-herself-from-lawsuit-over-brain-dead-pregnant-woman?lite

Good call by the judge there, removing any possibility for a conflict of interests. I also feel it's important to draw this little excerpt:

Quote
Her husband, Erick Munoz, has said that doctors have described her as brain-dead and that his wife was clear that she wouldn't want to be kept alive.

Just to make clear, their is nothing definitive about either Mrs. Munoz's will, or her condition.

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #248 on: January 17, 2014, 10:50:06 AM »
Just to make clear, their is nothing definitive about either Mrs. Munoz's will, or her condition.

What's unclear about her condition?  From everything I've read, doctors have examined her thoroughly and concurred that she is brain-dead with no hope of recovery.  If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #249 on: January 17, 2014, 10:57:49 AM »
What's unclear about her condition?  From everything I've read, doctors have examined her thoroughly and concurred that she is brain-dead with no hope of recovery.  If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

I'm sorry, which articles have you been reading? Everything to date has asserted only that the parents and husband believe that their daughter was described to them as "brain-dead". Whether or not doctor's have thoroughly examined her, we have no information to go on but the family's word, which is purely hearsay.

I am asserting that it's not productive to presume Mrs. Munoz's condition as brain-dead with no hope of recovery, except for the sake of argument in a worst-case-scenario. In essence, since we have no actual evidence as to the truth of Mrs. Munoz's condition, I feel the burden of proof must lie with those who claim that she is definitively brain-dead and therefore "dead".