Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, I'd point out that a potentially rational (tho, it seems, still hopelessly divisive) debate about the nature of legal personhood often gets replaced by an even more bitterly divisive tendency toward demagoguery - appeals to emotions, generally with heaping doses of exaggeration, over-simplification, and an emphasis on "us" vs "them" mentality - hero's vs monsters with no room, of course, for compromise. But never mind all that for the moment. I'd like to see if we can clarify some of the subtlety underlying the basic principles involved.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the late-term fetus is, by all reason and evidence, destined for a life of vegetative coma and can only be kept alive via life-support technology? Should a severely deformed fetus be kept alive on life support indefinitely? (And, as a purely practical matter, who should be responsible for the financial burdens of doing this?) Would it be moral, in this case, to withhold life support? How many anti-abortion activists would say "let the fetus die" in this case?
You've just perfectly described the dilemma of perpetually supporting those via fed gov and state taxpayer-paid handouts to those who cannot support themselves.
Quote:
And suppose that the parents feel that it is God's will that the fetus die in this case? Suppose that from their point of view, applying extreme medical intervention to maintain life is a form of human arrogance that is thwarting God's will. Would their interpretation of God's will be obviously inferior to someone else's interpretation of God's will?
Suppose it's anyone's belief that dying is God's will if one cannot support oneself. It's the same question as to resolution. Let the compromised newborns die? If that's what Dems want, as they've clearly indicated with new life, we should abolish all welfare programs as they're interjecting artificial means of support.
Quote:
I'm curious to understand the basic principles underlying various people's positions on the abortion debate. Are people willing to admit any moral grey areas or accept diversity of beliefs? Or does the issue necessarily always have to be sorted out purely in terms of "obviously good" vs. "obviously evil" with no middle ground?
Either all who cannot support themselves deserve artificial support via welfare, etc., or none do.
I'm curious to understand the basic principles underlying various people's positions on the abortion debate. Are people willing to admit any moral grey areas or accept diversity of beliefs? Or does the issue necessarily always have to be sorted out purely in terms of "obviously good" vs. "obviously evil" with no middle ground?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Either all who cannot support themselves deserve artificial support via welfare, etc., or none do.
It seems like you are rejecting the possibility of moral ambiguity, so let me see if I understand. Am I correct in thinking that, according to your beliefs, there can be no such thing as objective moral ambiguity? In other words, in every case there is always a clear and objectively correct moral choice (clear, at least, to God, even if some humans have trouble seeing it). And, along these lines, God would never ever present a human being with a morally ambiguous situation (a dilemma that has no objectively correct answer)? Or is it possible that God might sometimes test humans by presenting them with a morally ambiguous situation?
Basically, I'm wonder if a deep spiritual/metaphysical divide exists between people over the question of objective moral ambiguity. And, if so, does this divide play a significant role in certain seemingly intractable political debates like abortion.
It seems like you are rejecting the possibility of moral ambiguity
Not at all. If the left thinks those who cannot sustain life on their own are expendable, that should apply to those dependent on welfare, public assistance, etc., as well.
Not at all. If the left thinks those who cannot sustain life on their own are expendable, that should apply to those dependent on welfare, public assistance, etc., as well.
So it seems you are accepting the possibility of moral ambiguity in principle, but you reject the idea that moral ambiguity might apply to the situation of a fetus that, once born, could not survive without life support.
Alternative view: Moral ambiguity might come into play due to the unknown level of consciousness of the fetus (or a rational difference of opinion over the consciousness of the fetus in this case). Even if we accept the basic principle that a conscious adult with full Constitutional rights as a citizen should be kept alive on life support indefinitely - at public expense, if necessary - moral ambiguity might prevent us from extending the exact same principle to the fetus. Does there absolute have to be a clear and correct moral choice in the case of the fetus? Or is it possible that, in the case of the fetus, there might not actually be a clear and correct moral choice?
So it seems you are accepting the possibility of moral ambiguity in principle, but you reject the idea that moral ambiguity might apply to the situation of a fetus that, once born, could not survive without life support.
If that's how liberals truly feel, I'd like them to apply the same conditions to those who are dependent on food, stamps, welfare, and the myriad of the other 80+ means-tested support programs that artificially support their lives. Just let them die.
If that's how liberals truly feel, I'd like them to apply the same conditions to those who are dependent on food, stamps, welfare, and the myriad of the other 80+ means-tested support programs that artificially support their lives. Just let them die.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
