Politics

ScottyRo · 07-21-2004, 08:48 PM

Here\'s a question - if a family member of yours was in a terrible car accident, ended up in the hospital in a coma, and stayed that way for 20 years, would you feel justified in eventually pulling the plug? That is what we\'re talking about here. Just as many seriously injured people cannot live without a machine, even a fairly mature fetus cannot survive outside of the womb. It is no more \'alive\' than the person on life support. Why do people feel it is justified to make a decision when it comes to the LIFE of an injured person, but not when it comes to a DEVELOPING LIFE?

First that injured person may have left a living will asking to be disconnected under the circumstances. If not, it\'s a closer question, but there is a huge difference. The injured person is being kept alive artificially. Without a machine, the injured person would die.

With the unborn child, the mechanism keeping the child alive is natural and a natural part of life. Without artificial intervention it is 100% certain that the child will either live or die by natuaral processes. The mother is not medical treatment. The mother is the beginning place of life. Thus, I don\'t have a problem with disconnecting the person from the machine because that is simply a refusal of medical care.

I think the \"when does life begin\" question is much more simple than you want to admit. For a human and other animals it is either at one of two points. (1) At conception, i.e., the meeting of the egg and sperm in such a way that the formation of a cell that will eventually develop into a living being begins, or (2) at the implantation of the egg into the uterus of the mother. At one of these two points the small individual is doing everything that is required to be considered life.

07-21-2004, 08:48 PM	#11
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Politics Here\'s a question - if a family member of yours was in a terrible car accident, ended up in the hospital in a coma, and stayed that way for 20 years, would you feel justified in eventually pulling the plug? That is what we\'re talking about here. Just as many seriously injured people cannot live without a machine, even a fairly mature fetus cannot survive outside of the womb. It is no more \'alive\' than the person on life support. Why do people feel it is justified to make a decision when it comes to the LIFE of an injured person, but not when it comes to a DEVELOPING LIFE? First that injured person may have left a living will asking to be disconnected under the circumstances. If not, it\'s a closer question, but there is a huge difference. The injured person is being kept alive artificially. Without a machine, the injured person would die. With the unborn child, the mechanism keeping the child alive is natural and a natural part of life. Without artificial intervention it is 100% certain that the child will either live or die by natuaral processes. The mother is not medical treatment. The mother is the beginning place of life. Thus, I don\'t have a problem with disconnecting the person from the machine because that is simply a refusal of medical care. I think the \"when does life begin\" question is much more simple than you want to admit. For a human and other animals it is either at one of two points. (1) At conception, i.e., the meeting of the egg and sperm in such a way that the formation of a cell that will eventually develop into a living being begins, or (2) at the implantation of the egg into the uterus of the mother. At one of these two points the small individual is doing everything that is required to be considered life.