The Abortion Ministry of Dr. Willie Parker

The reason for the decision maker is that not all situations are as black and white as the one you are presenting. In your instance, what reason does fictional OV's wife have for not giving the go ahead on the procedure that can save OV's life?

 

Her reasons don't matter. You gave me a blanketed statement: the law maybe should require her to save the life. Would you like to amend?

I could ask you why the law should make such a requirement. And maybe I should. So amend the statement, and we can go from there. Or give me your reason why it should.

I made an absolutely simple hypothetical, and you are wavering on your answer. Why why should I give you a less black and white answer until you've managed to address the simple question?

 

From my point of view, look at it like this. 6 posts or so above you said it isn't easy. Then two posts above you said it was too black and white (implying it is too easy).

So which is it? Not easy, or too easy?

 

It's equally idiotic to call 2 cells a baby as it is to say it doesn't become a human until it comes out of the mothers vagina. The vast majority of fetuses can survive outside of the mother and have all human characteristics well before birth.

 

Are you a fetus droski? At this moment? Why not?

(This is a bit of a trap. If you say you aren't you've defined a difference. If you say you are, I can ask about killing other humans/fetuses and why one is right vs another).

 

I'm not wavering on anything, and the reason absolutely matters. OV's hypothetical wife should not be legally able to prevent the procedure from being performed under certain circumstances. If the patient is unable to speak for himself about whether he wishes to live or die, why would the assumption not be that he wishes to live? If the procedure will allow him to do so just as normally as he had been prior to his coma, why wouldn't we assume that he wants to live.

That's where the reasons come in. Maybe the procedure will allow him to live but will fully paralyze him. Maybe it will leave him in a vegetative state. In such cases, it is much more reasonable to assume that he might not wish to live, in which case, next of kin would probably know best.

If he has a high percentage chance of recovering to a fully normal state after the surgery, there is no reasonable scenario in which choosing to let him die should be okay unless that choice is his own (which in huh is case, it cannot be).

 

It isn't this easy... As in there's more of a gray area than you want to admit with your scenario. What are you missing here?

 

Because we cannot assume. Law, morality, ethics is not about assumptions. Or at least it should not be. Otherwise, begin to assume all kinds of things. We assume that one person is lesser than another, because of head circumference. Or we assume that price is no object.

What results from assumptions, is blanketed statements that then must be corrected. Far easier to simply find the correct answer the first time, rather than go back and correct over time.

As you say, there may be issues: there is life and there is life. Philosophically speaking, we call it "quality of life." In which case now we are again saying life is not important, we are saying "quality of life" is important. See how it gets complicated?

It is much, much easier to simply address the problem as if it were a simple problem. Otherwise this is what we get:

Simple:
It is illegal to speed.

Complex:
It is illegal to speed, unless you are in an emergency. Unless you left the toaster plugged in. Unless you <insert something stupid>.

And you are wavering, you have yet to decide whether or not, in this simple black and white issue, whether or not the person should be required to preserve life. You are, in fact, wavering on the reason, of which you gave excellent examples. But when you remove reasons, what do you conclude? That the decision maker shouldn't limit under certain circumstances.

And how you have to define those circumstances. Now you've made it complex.

 

It is easy.

The answer is that yes, the decision maker can decide, for whatever reason, to do as she wishes.

That's why we allow for, in the law, advanced directives, living wills and powers of attorney.

We make it simple, we keep it simple, we decide a simple outcome. And then we say if you can't live with that simple solution, here is your way out, to say, for yourself what you want.

And we've solved the problem. Simple, elegant, neat. Efficient. We don't have to define 35,000 scenarios in which we force the procedure or we don't.

 

Fetus/baby has none of the aforementioned options.

 

Why does that matter? Someone who was never told about those options never had those options either, but they are all treated equally.

So, tell me why a decision maker should be compelled to make the choice that favors life, in general terms. I'm sure you are familiar with the Einstein quote? Apply it here. Simply.

Because, Occam's Razor, or the rule of parsimony states that the simplest solution is often the correct one. So can you make a case why the decision maker should be compelled to say yes to the procedure without adding anything additional to the most simple of scenarios?

 

Why should this be approached as a simple issue? There are plenty of people who think it is extremely complicated.

 

It has been made extremely complicated, but why should it be?

A decision maker's capacity to make a decision for another is storied, but the basis is rooted in simplicity. And that is that the decision maker has final say. Simple enough.

It doesn't get complex until issues of deciding who the decision maker is, and whether they represent the truest interests of the patient. Truest interests, not best for.

You have actually made it more complex by near enough stating that it doesn't matter what the decision maker says, or who the decision maker is.

You are building complexity, and that is why you believe it isn't easy. It is easy. So why make it complex?

 

First, remind me why, under the circumstances you provided, the mother cannot choose to kill the baby once it's born? It can't make the decision itself to keep on living, just like OV and the fetus. It also can't survive without the nurturing and care of the mother, just as the fetus relies on the mother's body for growth. Mother is next of kin. It's her choice, right? Why should the baby be protected but not the fetus?

 

Because the baby is a separate and distinct life form, and the fetus is not.

Additionally, the mother does not have to care for the baby. She can turn it over at any point, at no cost to herself. However, in the womb, she cannot.

In other words, in the womb, she is the sole provider. Outside the womb, she is not.

 

OV is a separate and distinct life form too. The second one covers it though. That's the only thing I could come up with. I'm thinking about your other two posts. If I don't get around to them tonight and they aren't completely buried tomorrow morning, I'll do my best to come up with an answer.

 

No worries. Don't feel obligated. This topic will come up again. And again. And again.

 

Often = always?

I guess I just don't understand why you want to make a literal life or death decision so simple. The phrase "life or death" itself is used to describe situations that are extremely important and complicated.

Edit: I don't have anything to add in response to the second post. They're both about the same issue.

 

Never say never or always. (Another cute phrase.) Thus the issue with Occam's Razor is that to say always would be to make it more complex (and untrue). So to keep it simple (and thus true), you say often.

Life or death is a saying. It is meant to have figurative connotation. But reduce it and what do you have? Really only two choices: life or death. Binary. One or the other.

That's all I'm doing; reducing the complexity.

There is a cute little problem solving situation that you may or may not be familiar with: you arrive home from work to find your house on fire, a tornado approaching, your car broke down, a dog biting your leg and you are clutching a briefcase full of important papers you must file. What do you do?

You can make the problem complex if you want, you can ask how far away is the tornado, what speed and direction it is traveling. How much of the house is on fire, can you put it out? How big is the dog, how sharp are the teeth? Is the car quickly reparable, can the files be filed later.

Or you can keep it simple. There is a dog currently biting your leg.

I choose to keep things simple.

 

Again, why is it okay to "murder babies" in the case of rape or incest? Is a fetus only a life when the mother consented to the sex that eventually lead to its creation?