dreamz Veteran Posted July 15, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 15, 2005 I'm fully comfortable in saying yes, as fair as anything in the world is capable of being. Life is full of unexpected burdens and mishaps, none of which grant one person the right to end the life of another person.Their is a hierarchy of rights, the right of a person to live trumphs a lot of other rights. I'm sure it is a viseral reaction on my part, immediately choosing the side of a child over the child's parents, but I think there is a reason for that, a good reason. It is instinctual to want to preserve the young, even at the expense of the fully matured. 586218024[/snapback] uh oh. that's dangerous territory. suppose then that the mother would suffer as a result of the birth, but suppose also that the mother could be extremely successful without the birth of such a child, e.g. is a scientist who can then cure a horrible disease. should the baby still be preserved at the expense of the mother? why? or why should the mother be preserved? if we preserve the young simply because they are young, we discriminate according to age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted July 15, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 15, 2005 uh oh. that's dangerous territory. suppose then that the mother would suffer as a result of the birth, but suppose also that the mother could be extremely successful without the birth of such a child, e.g. is a scientist who can then cure a horrible disease. should the baby still be preserved at the expense of the mother? why? or why should the mother be preserved?if we preserve the young simply because they are young, we discriminate according to age. 586218048[/snapback] No it isn't age discrimination, it pragmatic. An infant is incapable of doing much of anything for itself. It requires protection, if it were my protection it required, I would like to think I would offer it. The same with the elderly enfeebled by their advanced age or people disabled by accidents, they are not as able to protect themselves and thus require protection from others. Now the situation with a mother suffering (which I imagine you are referring to serious health risks here), I think at that point it does in fact become the choice of the mother as to whether or not to carry the child to term. Because just as I think it is wrong for a mother to make her life better at the expense of a child's life, it is equally wrong for me to want that same mother to endanger her own life for the sake of her child. I don't feel I would have any moral high ground at that point, you can't force someone to sacrifice themselves to save the life of another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts