TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

RE: Should A 17-Year-Old Be Allowed To Choose Death?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
"Let me ask you this - do you think a person should be able to choose to kill their 1 year old child? Do you think that's a personal or family decision? Because I consider a fetus no different than a child.

I believe in individual rights - to the extent they affect YOU. For the elderly, I believe in allowing natural death to occur. I believe in withholding treatment and even withdrawing treatment if they are choosing to do so, or their family decides for them if they can't. I don't believe in actively killing." - Lawyerlady

I don't believe a person should be able to kill their 1 year old child. I don't think anyone believes that. However, just because you believe a born child that's been removed (by natural birth or C-Section) from the pregnant woman's body is no different than a fetus, doesn't make that belief true for everyone.

Withholding/withdrawing treatment that can cure a disease or extend life is the same as actively killing, because by withholding/withdrawing treatment, you are actively shortening the life span that otherwise could exist. (kind of like your belief that a fetus and a child are the same thing).

You asked about how I reconcile my different positions - so an argument over whether my belief is right is not necessary. And your statement goes both ways.

As for the second - I have no issue with allowing natural death due to terminal illnesses if that is what the patient wants. That is not actively "shortening" anything. It leaves God in charge.

I really get surprised by people that fear death so very much when they believe in God.

And I get really confused by people who think suicide is a personal choice, but that refusing certain medical treatments should be over-ruled.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Wednesday 14th of January 2015 07:30:14 AM

chef · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"Let me ask you this - do you think a person should be able to choose to kill their 1 year old child? Do you think that's a personal or family decision? Because I consider a fetus no different than a child.

I believe in individual rights - to the extent they affect YOU. For the elderly, I believe in allowing natural death to occur. I believe in withholding treatment and even withdrawing treatment if they are choosing to do so, or their family decides for them if they can't. I don't believe in actively killing." - Lawyerlady

I don't believe a person should be able to kill their 1 year old child. I don't think anyone believes that. However, just because you believe a born child that's been removed (by natural birth or C-Section) from the pregnant woman's body is no different than a fetus, doesn't make that belief true for everyone.

Withholding/withdrawing treatment that can cure a disease or extend life is the same as actively killing, because by withholding/withdrawing treatment, you are actively shortening the life span that otherwise could exist. (kind of like your belief that a fetus and a child are the same thing).

So, is it ever ok, in your opinion, to refrain from treating a disease? In your opinion, should people be kept alive indefinitely by whatever means necessary just because of a lifespan that could exist?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"Why is it an inconsistency? Abortion actively kills someone else - an innocent child. This isn't about killing, it's about withholding care. If a baby was born with severe defects and the parents had to decide between grueling, painful treatments that MIGHT work and letting the baby die naturally, I'd be all behind their decision, too.

And as for government involvement - I'm generally against it except as far as normal regulations for safety, like making sure doctors are licensed, and enforcing criminal laws. But I think abortion is about killing - not medical treatment." - Lawyerlady

It's not about withholding care though, it's about making a personal, private decision. So it boils down to "government should deny the right to choose" or "government should grant the right to choose". That is the same question in both, abortion cases and chemo treatment cases.

Abortion being about killing is your opinion. Pro-choice people have a different opinion. So the question is the same: Should the government have the say-so - or should the person or family?

If parents are neglecting , beating or abusing their child then why should govt step into that either?

Ohfour · Hooker

WYSIWYG, so, do you think its ok for a 17 year old to be able to make a decision about abortion but not about chemo? I'm trying to reconcile the two, but I'm not seeing the difference...

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I don't think a 17 yr old should be getting an abortion.

Ohfour · Hooker

That's not the point. At 17 you can in CT. But you can't make other medical decisions for yourself? That inconsistent.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Yes. And that law is wrong too. A minor cannot sign contracts and consent.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"So, is it ever ok, in your opinion, to refrain from treating a disease? In your opinion, should people be kept alive indefinitely by whatever means necessary just because of a lifespan that could exist?" - chef

I'm not a "pro-lifer". I'm a "pro-choicer". I think the choice should be up to the person, not the government. If they want to try the treatment, and they can pay for it (either by their own funds or insurance), they should. If they don't want to, then they shouldn't have to.

My whole issue in the comment you quoted was Lawyerlady's hypocritical "The government should step in and control choice" on one hand (abortion), but "The government shouldn't step in and control choice" on the other hand (forced treatment of a disease, in this case, cancer). Either a person wants government control, or they don't.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"WYSIWYG, so, do you think its ok for a 17 year old to be able to make a decision about abortion but not about chemo? I'm trying to reconcile the two, but I'm not seeing the difference..." - Ohfour

I believe you are confusing me with Lawyerlady. I believe that both should be the choice of the person.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
"So, is it ever ok, in your opinion, to refrain from treating a disease? In your opinion, should people be kept alive indefinitely by whatever means necessary just because of a lifespan that could exist?" - chef

I'm not a "pro-lifer". I'm a "pro-choicer". I think the choice should be up to the person, not the government. If they want to try the treatment, and they can pay for it (either by their own funds or insurance), they should. If they don't want to, then they shouldn't have to.

My whole issue in the comment you quoted was Lawyerlady's hypocritical "The government should step in and control choice" on one hand (abortion), but "The government shouldn't step in and control choice" on the other hand (forced treatment of a disease, in this case, cancer). Either a person wants government control, or they don't.

It's not hypocritical- one is intentional active killing (which SHOULD be murder under the law), one is medical treatment. Wanting the government to outlaw abortion is no different than expecting them to have laws against killing your children or anyone else.

While I'm against government interference, that does not extend to the point that I don't think the government shouldn't make laws that protect people from being killed. Geesh.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

I don't think a 17 yr old should be getting an abortion.

I don't think anyone should except under VERY limited circumstances

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I mean without parental consent

WYSIWYG · Guru

"It's not hypocritical- one is intentional active killing (which SHOULD be murder under the law), one is medical treatment. Wanting the government to outlaw abortion is no different than expecting them to have laws against killing your children or anyone else.

While I'm against government interference, that does not extend to the point that I don't think the government shouldn't make laws that protect people from being killed. Geesh." - Lawyerlady

Withholding necessary medical treatment is just as much "active killing", because if with the treatment they would live longer, you are actively not allowing them to live that extra time. So, I don't understand the difference in your mind.

I'm sorry, but it's hypocritical to me for someone to say "the government can interfere on this issue that would extend life" (abortion), but "the government can't interfere in that issue that would extend life" (chemotherapy).

I'm not arguing against either of your stances though, just asking you to pick one side or the other. Should the government be allowed to interfere, or shouldn't they? This is why precedent is important.

Ohfour · Hooker

Making a decision about the end of your life does not equate to making a decision about ending another life.

huskerbb · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Making a decision about the end of your life does not equate to making a decision about ending another life.

A life is a life. You are either pro-life--or you aren't.

If you are for letting this girl die--you aren't.

huskerbb · Guru

wrong thread

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 15th of January 2015 11:10:00 PM

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 15th of January 2015 11:10:29 PM

WYSIWYG · Guru

"Making a decision about the end of your life does not equate to making a decision about ending another life." - Ohfour

As a matter of personal choice, I agree with you, however, this isn't personal choice. This is government interference in personal choices. And it's also about precedents.

Ohfour · Hooker

huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Making a decision about the end of your life does not equate to making a decision about ending another life.
A life is a life. You are either pro-life--or you aren't.

If you are for letting this girl die--you aren't.

So 60 year olds that make the choice not to use chemo are anti life? Age makes a difference? You either are or you aren't...so says you...

huskerbb · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Making a decision about the end of your life does not equate to making a decision about ending another life.
A life is a life. You are either pro-life--or you aren't.

If you are for letting this girl die--you aren't.
So 60 year olds that make the choice not to use chemo are anti life? Age makes a difference? You either are or you aren't...so says you...

Yes, they are.

Ohfour · Hooker

You have deeper issues than any of us thought. You need help.

huskerbb · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
You have deeper issues than any of us thought. You need help.

I'm just not a hypocrite such as yourself. Maybe you aren't used to dealing with people who aren't.

Ohfour · Hooker

Meh. I'm true. Ask anyone. Can't say the same for you...your posts are pretty much all over the place.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
"It's not hypocritical- one is intentional active killing (which SHOULD be murder under the law), one is medical treatment. Wanting the government to outlaw abortion is no different than expecting them to have laws against killing your children or anyone else.

While I'm against government interference, that does not extend to the point that I don't think the government shouldn't make laws that protect people from being killed. Geesh." - Lawyerlady

Withholding necessary medical treatment is just as much "active killing", because if with the treatment they would live longer, you are actively not allowing them to live that extra time. So, I don't understand the difference in your mind.

I'm sorry, but it's hypocritical to me for someone to say "the government can interfere on this issue that would extend life" (abortion), but "the government can't interfere in that issue that would extend life" (chemotherapy).

I'm not arguing against either of your stances though, just asking you to pick one side or the other. Should the government be allowed to interfere, or shouldn't they? This is why precedent is important.

I have already answered this. The government has a limited role, as it should. One of those roles is to enforce laws that protect society, especially from violence from other people. The government has laws against murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, rape, assault, theft, etc. They enforce those laws, and that is their ROLE. Abortion is also killing, and therefore, outlawing that would simply be an extension of that particular role.

However, when it comes to INDIVIDUAL rights that don't affect others- the government needs to butt out. The choice of medical treatment is a personal one.

It's like smoking - the government can't tell you not to smoke, but they can tell you that you can't smoke in public places, because it affects the health of OTHERS.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Making a decision about the end of your life does not equate to making a decision about ending another life.
A life is a life. You are either pro-life--or you aren't.

If you are for letting this girl die--you aren't.

So then, you think everyone should be hooked up to machines to be kept alive as long as possible with all medical intervention available? Given every kind of treatment possible? Required to undergo surgeries that might save them?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

I'm guessing Brittany Maynard would have loved this diagnosis.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
I'm guessing Brittany Maynard would have loved this diagnosis.

flan

Really? That's pretty reprehensible right there. You ONLY have this kind of cancer, it's not as bad as that one - you should consider yourself lucky. evileye

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
I'm guessing Brittany Maynard would have loved this diagnosis.

flan
Really? That's pretty reprehensible right there. You ONLY have this kind of cancer, it's not as bad as that one - you should consider yourself lucky.

A cancer with a high rate of survival after chemo?

She would be alive today.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
I'm guessing Brittany Maynard would have loved this diagnosis.

flan
Really? That's pretty reprehensible right there. You ONLY have this kind of cancer, it's not as bad as that one - you should consider yourself lucky.
A cancer with a high rate of survival after chemo?
She would be alive today.
flan

And yet, she chose death. She even ended it purposefully, which, for those who are arguing life is sacred, you have to do whatever it takes - should NOT be supporting.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
I'm guessing Brittany Maynard would have loved this diagnosis.

flan
Really? That's pretty reprehensible right there. You ONLY have this kind of cancer, it's not as bad as that one - you should consider yourself lucky.
A cancer with a high rate of survival after chemo?
She would be alive today.
flan
And yet, she chose death. She even ended it purposefully, which, for those who are arguing life is sacred, you have to do whatever it takes - should NOT be supporting.

Because the cancer was so invasive, there WAS no treatment.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
I'm guessing Brittany Maynard would have loved this diagnosis.

flan
Really? That's pretty reprehensible right there. You ONLY have this kind of cancer, it's not as bad as that one - you should consider yourself lucky.
A cancer with a high rate of survival after chemo?
She would be alive today.
flan
And yet, she chose death. She even ended it purposefully, which, for those who are arguing life is sacred, you have to do whatever it takes - should NOT be supporting.
Because the cancer was so invasive, there WAS no treatment.
flan

So? She should have embraced the life she had left, right? I mean, just because she would have suffered is no reason to end LIFE.

This is the hypocritical stance. You are saying this woman could end her life b/c she would have had no quality of life, and yet you are willing to FORCE another person to treat their cancer with a horrible poison that will likely leave lasting side effects -which is not quality of life, either.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
I'm guessing Brittany Maynard would have loved this diagnosis.

flan
Really? That's pretty reprehensible right there. You ONLY have this kind of cancer, it's not as bad as that one - you should consider yourself lucky.
A cancer with a high rate of survival after chemo?
She would be alive today.
flan
And yet, she chose death. She even ended it purposefully, which, for those who are arguing life is sacred, you have to do whatever it takes - should NOT be supporting.
Because the cancer was so invasive, there WAS no treatment.
flan
So? She should have embraced the life she had left, right? I mean, just because she would have suffered is no reason to end LIFE.
This is the hypocritical stance. You are saying this woman could end her life b/c she would have had no quality of life, and yet you are willing to FORCE another person to treat their cancer with a horrible poison that will likely leave lasting side effects -which is not quality of life, either.

So everyone who has had chemo and now is cancer free has a horrible life? Like Mario Lemeiux who owns the Pittsburgh Penguins and was a hockey superstar or any number of others. Guess they should have just died instead. hmm

Ohfour · Hooker

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
I'm guessing Brittany Maynard would have loved this diagnosis.

flan
Really? That's pretty reprehensible right there. You ONLY have this kind of cancer, it's not as bad as that one - you should consider yourself lucky.
A cancer with a high rate of survival after chemo?
She would be alive today.
flan
And yet, she chose death. She even ended it purposefully, which, for those who are arguing life is sacred, you have to do whatever it takes - should NOT be supporting.
Because the cancer was so invasive, there WAS no treatment.
flan
So? She should have embraced the life she had left, right? I mean, just because she would have suffered is no reason to end LIFE.
This is the hypocritical stance. You are saying this woman could end her life b/c she would have had no quality of life, and yet you are willing to FORCE another person to treat their cancer with a horrible poison that will likely leave lasting side effects -which is not quality of life, either.
So everyone who has had chemo and now is cancer free has a horrible life? Like Mario Lemeiux who owns the Pittsburgh Penguins and was a hockey superstar or any number of others. Guess they should have just died instead.

If that's what he had wanted, then yes. Just like Steve Jobs did...

WYSIWYG · Guru

"I have already answered this. The government has a limited role, as it should. One of those roles is to enforce laws that protect society, especially from violence from other people. The government has laws against murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, rape, assault, theft, etc. They enforce those laws, and that is their ROLE. Abortion is also killing, and therefore, outlawing that would simply be an extension of that particular role.

However, when it comes to INDIVIDUAL rights that don't affect others- the government needs to butt out. The choice of medical treatment is a personal one.

It's like smoking - the government can't tell you not to smoke, but they can tell you that you can't smoke in public places, because it affects the health of OTHERS." - Lawyerlady

To you, abortion is killing. To others it is not. It's a question to many of "when does ensoulment occur?", and there are even others that don't believe a soul (atheists, for example) exists. As to the laws against killing, there are many exceptions to that: self defense, killing opposition soldiers during war, state sanctioned death in a death penalty case, assisted suicide, just to name a few non-abortion examples.

Because of that, you haven't actually answered the question posed to you. You have skirted it by exception in a very lawyerly manner (considering your occupation, probably second nature to you :) ).

With that in mind, assume that this is going to set a precedent for ALL questions of this nature for ALL time: Should the government be allowed to interfere, or shouldn't they? No "depends on the situation" side-stepping, just a simple "yes they should be" or "no they shouldn't be".

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
"I have already answered this. The government has a limited role, as it should. One of those roles is to enforce laws that protect society, especially from violence from other people. The government has laws against murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, rape, assault, theft, etc. They enforce those laws, and that is their ROLE. Abortion is also killing, and therefore, outlawing that would simply be an extension of that particular role.

However, when it comes to INDIVIDUAL rights that don't affect others- the government needs to butt out. The choice of medical treatment is a personal one.

It's like smoking - the government can't tell you not to smoke, but they can tell you that you can't smoke in public places, because it affects the health of OTHERS." - Lawyerlady

To you, abortion is killing. To others it is not. It's a question to many of "when does ensoulment occur?", and there are even others that don't believe a soul (atheists, for example) exists. As to the laws against killing, there are many exceptions to that: self defense, killing opposition soldiers during war, state sanctioned death in a death penalty case, assisted suicide, just to name a few non-abortion examples.

Because of that, you haven't actually answered the question posed to you. You have skirted it by exception in a very lawyerly manner (considering your occupation, probably second nature to you :) ).

With that in mind, assume that this is going to set a precedent for ALL questions of this nature for ALL time: Should the government be allowed to interfere, or shouldn't they? No "depends on the situation" side-stepping, just a simple "yes they should be" or "no they shouldn't be".

But since you are asking for justification of MY feelings on the matter, it is MY beliefs that matter, right?

As for precedent - the law turns on facts all the time. I do not think a sweeping generalization that does not account for differing facts to be a good idea. So, sorry - can't give you what you want. That's why lawyers always answer with "it depends" - because it does. The devil is always in the details. The only GENERAL statement I can give you is that I think personal decisions that do not affect others should not be interfered with by the government.

WYSIWYG · Guru

But since you are asking for justification of MY feelings on the matter, it is MY beliefs that matter, right?

As for precedent - the law turns on facts all the time. I do not think a sweeping generalization that does not account for differing facts to be a good idea. So, sorry - can't give you what you want. That's why lawyers always answer with "it depends" - because it does. The devil is always in the details. The only GENERAL statement I can give you is that I think personal decisions that do not affect others should not be interfered with by the government." - Lawyerlady

No, I am not asking for your personal feelings, I am asking about a legal decision that would be applied to everyone. Including people that don't believe a fetus to be anything special (or at least not worthy of it's own rights separate and independent of the pregnant woman) until it is actually born.

So, a person that believes an abortion doesn't affect others should be able to choose? Is that what you are saying with your last sentence?

Maybe some of us can't understand why you can't answer this simple question, because we absolutely can answer it, and we see it as very easy to answer. huskerbb seems to feel the same as I do about this being an answerable question (he can correct me if I'm wrong). Even though we both answered it differently, we still picked a "yes they should" or a "no they shouldn't" answer.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
But since you are asking for justification of MY feelings on the matter, it is MY beliefs that matter, right?

As for precedent - the law turns on facts all the time. I do not think a sweeping generalization that does not account for differing facts to be a good idea. So, sorry - can't give you what you want. That's why lawyers always answer with "it depends" - because it does. The devil is always in the details. The only GENERAL statement I can give you is that I think personal decisions that do not affect others should not be interfered with by the government." - Lawyerlady

No, I am not asking for your personal feelings, I am asking about a legal decision that would be applied to everyone. Including people that don't believe a fetus to be anything special (or at least not worthy of it's own rights separate and independent of the pregnant woman) until it is actually born.

So, a person that believes an abortion doesn't affect others should be able to choose? Is that what you are saying with your last sentence?

Maybe some of us can't understand why you can't answer this simple question, because we absolutely can answer it, and we see it as very easy to answer. huskerbb seems to feel the same as I do about this being an answerable question (he can correct me if I'm wrong). Even though we both answered it differently, we still picked a "yes they should" or a "no they shouldn't" answer.

No, this started with you wanting justification of how I reconcile being pro-life with my feelings over this matter. I have already answered that. And an abortion affects the child. You just don't seem to agree with me about abortion being killing. But just because you don't agree with me does not make my opinion invalid.

WYSIWYG · Guru

I don't get on over the weekend, so I apologize for the delay.

I disagree. It was never about wanting your justification. People's personal opinions generally don't need or require justification to other people, it's only their actions that require it.

My "pick an answer" question never was about justification, it was a "what precedent would you set?" question. Neither of us wanted Hobby Lobby to be forced to provide BC, but The Supreme Court made a ruling that set a very bad precedent. Instead of rightly ruling that no one could be forced, they ruled that the religious couldn't be forced. But that's the precedent that's now applicable.

I'm not going ask the question of you again Lawyerlady, so I'm not looking for an answer from you, I just think everyone ought to ask themselves the question: Should the government make our decisions for us, or should they not?

The following "you's" are all meant in the general sense: If you think the government should make our decisions for us, then you must think they should in all instances, because, I guarantee that even though you wouldn't force certain things on others or want them forced on you, there are others that would happily force them because their beliefs differ. And, once the precedent is set, they would have a way to force those things that you don't want forced.

huskerbb · Guru

Abortion is killing--but being "pro-life" isn't just about those who are actively killed. It is about issues such as euthanasia--and--THIS.

Ohfour · Hooker

Killing is not the same as self decided euthanasia. Thou shall not kill is directly talking about murder.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"Killing is not the same as self decided euthanasia. Thou shall not kill is directly talking about murder." - Ohfour

Killing others (murder) or killing self (self decided euthanasia/suicide) is still killing. In either case, someone is still dead.

Ohfour · Hooker

WYSIWYG wrote:
"Killing is not the same as self decided euthanasia. Thou shall not kill is directly talking about murder." - Ohfour

Killing others (murder) or killing self (self decided euthanasia/suicide) is still killing. In either case, someone is still dead.

Nope. Not at all. Murder is: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Suicide is not illegal. Murder is.

-- Edited by Ohfour on Wednesday 21st of January 2015 03:04:54 PM

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Not sure what abortion even has to do with this, but whatevs.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"Nope. Not at all. Murder is: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Suicide is not illegal. Murder is." - Ohfour

And your point is?

I never said suicide was illegal. I said killing is still killing. I said: "In either case, someone is still dead". I never argued against your "murder" point.