The Abortion Ministry of Dr. Willie Parker

Then I guess I'd argue that what we were considering the "initial foundation" is truly a foundation, while what we were considering the "second foundation" is more than just a foundation. It's more of a partially built house.

 

For the first: I still don't see how what you said means Y should not be considered in this scenario. It sounds like you are using Y to make your point.

For the second: but how can that even be considered if we aren't considering Y time?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

 

I like that. A house under construction.

 

And a partially built house cannot be completed without making a requirement on an additional source. Same as saying a woman doesn't get pregnant without an additional source.

A fetus (a partially built human) doesn't get anywhere without its incubator.

So why now is it important? It can't simply be "left alone." It requires another.

 

Second first. We aren't considering Y time. We are allowing the patient to consider Y time, or has been stated, the patient's next of kin, should the patient not be able to make that decision for themselves.

For example, let's say that at 13 hours brain dead, we can't do anything. But some how at 2 years brain dead, we can. At the 13th hour we aren't deciding to keep the patient alive for 2 years. His next of kin will, depending on the cost, benefit, patient's wishes, etc.

We aren't considering Y time, we are saying that is how long you have to wait for any improvement.

As to the first:
The point is that Y time doesn't matter to the decision today. The fetus may survive. But it won't now. A method by to make it survive today may become available, but that doesn't matter now.

Similarly, technology may advance to restore brain function to our brain dead patient. But that doesn't matter today.

The decision should be made based on the circumstances of now, not a hope for the future.

 

Ah, so a "partially built person," or in other words, less than a full person.

 

I think it would be better if it was a mother and it is her son that is brain dead. Wouldn't the father still have a say in whether to pull the plug?

"But what if the mother, and only the mother, could operate the machine to keep him alive?"

The only way this would be valid is if the "machine" was some autonomic apparatus that she didn't have to think about, but perhaps caused some discomfiture for a few months. Then, after a few months, the machine could be strapped on the dad if he wanted to keep the son alive.

I cannot understand why it is the woman's, and only the woman's, decision to have an abortion. You say it is her body, but the fetus is not her body. It is, for lack of a better word, a human parasite that has attached itself to the woman's uterus. The DNA is not hers, it very likely will have a different blood type than her, will supply its own electric impulses to pump its heart, operate its kidneys, etc, etc.

Once fully formed, with its brain operating and its own heart pumping blood through its own system, it is no different than a baby that is five minutes old outside of the womb, just a lot smaller. And imho, deserves the same rights and protections of such a child.

If we want to leave it only up to the woman, then why can the father not choose to "abort" and cut off all ties, emotional and monetarily, with the child? The woman can choose to do so by simply having an abortion, whether the father wants it or not. The man is completely held hostage in this situation to his own mistakes (and should). But the woman is the only one in this situation with an out.

I have problems with that.

 

I'm confused as to what a being a full person means

 

3/5ths seems like a fair fraction.

 

Full person? So amputees aren't privy to the same rights as everyone else?

 

In some ethics circles, a full person would be a human being capable of rational thought, with decision making ability and/or the ability to make a decision.

Meaning, that while a brain dead human being, and a fetus, are human beings, and represent life, they are not persons.

 

How could we say it only applied to someone missing a limb?

 

So only "full people" have every right in the book. Meaning my uncle, who had a high fever right after birth and wasn't able to develop to full mental capacity, was a lesser person and not allowed the same rights as everyone else.

 

I'm going to give you a scenario, and I would like your answer.

Suppose a pregnant woman at near term was found to have a rare medical condition that necessitated treatment by only a single drug. No other operation, procedure or medication could treat the issue. Just this single drug.

Now, suppose if the woman takes the drug she lives, but her fetus dies. If she doesn't take the drug, she dies, but her death contractions force the labor and the fetus is delivered and a baby is born. Attempting to operate to remove the fetus and then administer the drug will kill both.

Her only option is to take the drug or not.

Can her baby daddy compel her to take the drug and live, or not take the drug, and die?

That again is your reason why the father has no say. It is not his body he is playing with.

 

Depends on whether he has basic decision making ability or not, and the ethical philosophy you are following.

Be sure though, limited mental capacity is not the equivalent of lacking decision making ability.

 

Your scenario a side, it's been my (limited) experience that by the time a woman gets the point of abortion, the father is already out of the picture or will be out of the picture as soon as the child is born. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but the scenarios where a man wants the child and the mother doesn't a few and far between.

 

How about starting with having the ability to breath?!?

 

I will make the assumption that a Caesarian is out of the question due to this particular ailment.

This is an exception, of course. No rule can cover all of the circumstances. And I understand the point where the woman's health is hers and she has the right to do what she will. She of course can choose life, no matter what the father says in this instance. It would be a tragedy no matter what choice is made, and is a lose-lose.

That said, I still have ethical problems where the father has no say in the matter. Both the male and female had parts to play in the conception of the fetus. Both supplied biological parts, both willfully (baring rape, of course) entered into copulation knowing full well they could have a child together.

I know, as Dooz mentioned, that most of the times when an abortion is in order the father is not anywhere to be seen anyway. However, I, as a male, just have problems that a woman can say "abort" but the male cannot. He is completely at the mercy of the mother where as she always has an out if she doesn't want to raise the child.

And it should be stated, that I mostly have issues with abortions (of all types baring mother's health) once the fetus is no longer an embryo.

 

I'm
Not sure that makes you full. Just means you have lungs

 

I'll admit I did not expect VolDad to be on the other side of this debate