Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion
Options
Comments
-
zeffabelli wrote: »How do you apply this universally? How would you apply this let's say to a woman who has already had three caesarian's?
Let's assume partity in value of the life of the child outside the womb to the child inside the womb. I will follow you there.
However, the life in the womb has a different set of consequences to the life of the mother than the life outside the womb does.
How do you reconcile this in order to apply universal principal?This is all very well, but what happens when someone else's opinion is the diametric opposite to yours? Is their "very personal opinion" as valid? As zeffabelli points out, the problem with opinions is that the opinions are subjective and thus cannot be applied beyond the person who has them, which is a bit pointless if debating abortion in terms of universal morality.
To put it another way; opinions are like assholes - everyone's got one.
I wasn't attacking anyone else's opinion, so I would appreciate it if people didn't attack mine. I was simply replying to the OP as she was asking Irish people's views on abortion. If it's voted in, I'll be disappointed, if it's not, I'll be happy. But I understand why people have different opinions on it, and I'd appreciate it if other people understood that as well.
To be clear, there is no applying an issue like this to a universal principal, in my opinion. I understand if a child isn't going to survive and carrying it would put the mother through too much, but what I'm against is creating life and then terminating it for materialistic reasons. Did anyone read the recent article about the woman in the U.S. who aborted her baby when she found out it would be male, because she wanted a girl? To me, that is cruel. When parents aren't ready for a child just yet, well maybe the baby isn't ready to be killed. The way I see it, it's not called murder because the victims have noone to demand their rights (as it is their own family aborting them) and they have no voice with which to protest.
This is why, as a young Irish woman, I see it as morally wrong.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »
I'm sorry, but I do have to bring you up on this point. You've done two things here; firstly you've abandoned the notion that all human life should be treated equally. You've created a hierarchy of some people having a greater right to life than others.
This is exactly what Abortion is, is it not? The unborn having a lesser right to life? Infanticide being illegal, abortion being debatable?0 -
This is exactly what Abortion is, is it not? The unborn having a lesser right to life? Infanticide being illegal, abortion being debatable?
ABortion is illegal in Ireland.
Not sure what the statutes are but perhaps you could look up for us whether obstetricians face criminal prosecution and murder charges in Ireland?
Do you have an case law on it...that would be interesting too to know.0 -
I just think that the life of the unborn child is as important as the life of the living child, they are living even though we cannot physically hold them yet. And for me personally a child's life is worth more than an adults, children are innocent and have their whole lives ahead of them. That's just where I get my reasoning from, I know not everyone will agree, but when I think of it the way I do there's no way I could support abortion.
The Constitution states the following:40.3.3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
In Irish constitutional law, the right to life of the unborn is equal to that of the unborn.
That seems impractical. Suppose we take the example of a thirty year old mother of two children, who is a patient in a maternity ward, and if a dangerous issue arises regarding her pregnancy, who should be given priority; mother or unborn child? According to the constitution, the unborn child and the mother have an equal right to life. The mother does not have priority, under constitutional law. However, if we suppose that this mother already has two children who depend upon her, it seems unreasonable not to afford her priority. The two existing children need their mother.
In the Savita Halappanavar case, the lady involved was experiencing a miscarriage and had requested an abortion. This was refused on the basis that the foetus had a heartbeat and that the mother did not appear to be in any physiological danger. She experienced septic shock and despite later medical intervention, she died.
Following that case, the government kicked for touch and enacted the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, which specifies that if there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman's life from a physical illness, and in the reasonable opinion of two medical practitioners, the only way of averting the risk is by carrying out an abortion, then an abortion can be carried out.
In the Halappanavar case, it had not been thought that the life of the mother was in danger, even though her health most certainly was. Therefore, it appears to me that nothing has changed and that there is nothing to prevent another Halappanavar situation arising again. The constitution and legislation do not provide adequate protection to expectant mothers.
I cannot see any sensible reason to afford equal status to the life of an unborn child with that of a mother. The idea doesn't make sense to me.
To go further, to suggest that the life of an unborn child has more worth than the life of a mother, makes even less sense.0 -
zeffabelli wrote: »ABortion is illegal in Ireland.
Not sure what the statutes are but perhaps you could look up for us whether obstetricians face criminal prosecution and murder charges in Ireland?
Do you have an case law on it...that would be interesting too to know.
Yes, it is illegal in most cases for now, but it is still being debated.
And yes, since abortions are against the law any obstetricians carrying out one would face criminal charges.0 -
Advertisement
-
Never suggested we were. I'm well aware that codes of ethics and laws will end up influenced, if not dictated, by sentiment. I'm talking about it from the context of the debate here, where I would presume we would seek to avoid such anti-intellectualism.zeffabelli wrote: »We are not robots, regardless of how rational one thinks they are, decisions are ultimately emotionally driven at their bottom line.
Not sure I'd agree. Morality, as a human invention, is as much a social concept, designed to allow us to coexist. Even at it's most basic, tribal, level it tends to lay down basic rules protecting regarding life, property and whatever hierarchy is in place to oversee things. That's got little to do with compassion and is more about cold-blooded utilitarianism, when you come down to it.Compassion is the beginning of morality, which is why it is not cut and dried.
Should you want evidence of this, all you need do is look at the diversity of morality in human cultures. While all tend to hold true to the above social principles many will hold no compassion at all for some scenarios, and others practically wallow in it.
That's my point - you've accepted the very principle that would make abortion moral. The moment you did this, the argument that human life should be equally cherished went out the window and you opened the door to debate on which human life is worth more - ethically, you're on a par with an abortionist, all that differs is the criteria by which you value people.This is exactly what Abortion is, is it not? The unborn having a lesser right to life? Infanticide being illegal, abortion being debatable?
Then this begs the question why does it not make sense to you? Caitie suggested one argument for the opposite stance, albeit a very weak one, which I questioned and she chose not to defend. However, you've not offered any.The Mustard wrote: »I cannot see any sensible reason to afford equal status to the life of an unborn child with that of a mother. The idea doesn't make sense to me.
Again it depends on the arguments given. If a better case for the value of the unborn child can be made over that of the mother, then so be it. If the reverse can be done, then that too would be a rational conclusion.To go further, to suggest that the life of an unborn child has more worth than the life of a mother, makes even less sense.
I would, however make two observations. Firstly, when weighing up the rights and values of each party, at what point is it acceptable to override the rights of the other? When the life of one will almost certainly be lost without the death of the other? When the physical health will be detrimentally affected? Mental health? Financial? Simply bodily integrity?
Secondly, I do think that suggesting that the life of an unborn child has more worth than the life of a mother is a bit of an own goal for the pro-life position. It accepts the concept that the value of one human can compared against another and, beyond imaginary and emotional measurements, the unborn child will likely be at the loosing end of such an assessment.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Never suggested we were. I'm well aware that codes of ethics and laws will end up influenced, if not dictated, by sentiment. I'm talking about it from the context of the debate here, where I would presume we would seek to avoid such anti-intellectualism.
Not sure I'd agree. Morality, as a human invention, is as much a social concept, designed to allow us to coexist. Even at it's most basic, tribal, level it tends to lay down basic rules protecting regarding life, property and whatever hierarchy is in place to oversee things. That's got little to do with compassion and is more about cold-blooded utilitarianism, when you come down to it.
They are not divorced concepts- one feeds into the other. We are in constant flux and debate over how to delegate compassion, and how we delgate it will influence how we order things.
The Godfather illustrates this well. Michael begins joining the military. His father asks why why have compassion for strangers. This violates home ethics.
What you see in the film is Michaels transformation back into family values of not having compassion for strangers and reserving compassion for family.
This very ethos is what leads back to the destruction of the family itself. We see how the delegation of compassion has very real consequences on life, death and order itself. It is the beginning of ethics and morality.
With abortion....do we hold compassion for the mother or for the feotus? We see the same conflict in the death penalty too.
With any life and death choice.....for whom do we have the compassion. This of course gets very complex because we must also consider law...universal principal and precedent.The Corinthian wrote: »I would, however make two observations. Firstly, when weighing up the rights and values of each party, at what point is it acceptable to override the rights of the other? When the life of one will almost certainly be lost without the death of the other? When the physical health will be detrimentally affected? Mental health? Financial? Simply bodily integrity?
Usually when a judge feels like it.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Then this begs the question why does it not make sense to you? Caitie suggested one argument for the opposite stance, albeit a very weak one, which I questioned and she chose not to defend. However, you've not offered any.
I didn't clarify my reason, which was that children need their mother. An anecdote had been passed to me about an expectant mother who asked her consultant obstetrician to give full priority to the life her unborn child over her own life, should any conflict arise in that regard. The consultant argued that she had two existing children who were dependent upon her and was of the opinion that the greater good would be served if she survived, should such a conflict situation arise. In this anecdote, the woman in question changed her instructions to her doctor in view of her responsibilities to her two existing children.
I suppose that it could be regarded as a value judgement as between the potential future function of a foetus which may be born and may add to society versus the existing function of an adult in society.
Additionally, the current law regarding abortion in this country leaves us with a situation where expectant mothers have fewer rights to bodily integrity than women who are not pregnant. It is arguable that this could lead to a situation where women are disincentivised from becoming pregnant in this country.
To quote the bereaved husband of Savita Halappanavar:“You lose your rights basically when you are pregnant here I think. You lose your rights to get necessary healthcare. Savita and me, we knew that abortion was illegal in Ireland but not termination when it is a planned pregnancy, when you can’t save the baby and the mother may die if you don’t do something like terminate. That was big shock for us.”
I'd suggest that the facts in the Halappanavar case alone should be enough to give credence to the priority to the right of life of the mother.0 -
In the real World, certainly. But if you want to use that as a justification for irrational, emotional arguments here, then no. If I want that I can just look to the real World.zeffabelli wrote: »They are not divorced concepts- one feeds into the other. We are in constant flux and debate over how to delegate compassion, and how we delgate it will influence how we order things.
This is the same Michael who has his brother-in-law killed in the first movie and his brother in the second? Who must suppress his compassion and is later haunted by the second murder that he felt compelled to order on the basis of that moral code?The Godfather illustrates this well. Michael begins joining the military. His father asks why why have compassion for strangers. This violates home ethics.
What you see in the film is Michaels transformation back into family values of not having compassion for strangers and reserving compassion for family.
I think you misunderstand the moral code practiced in that series of movies. It's got very little to do with compassion, but with a framework of honour and fealty - basically a form of Feudalism.
As I said, down that road lies anti-intellectualism. The justification for whatever you feel. That may happen in the Real World, but I'd rather not entertain it here.With any life and death choice.....for whom do we have the compassion. This of course gets very complex because we must also consider law...universal principal and precedent.
A very valid argument.Pat Mustard wrote: »I suppose that it could be regarded as a value judgement as between the potential future function of a foetus which may be born and may add to society versus the existing function of an adult in society.
Perhaps in the Halappanavar case, and with the benefit of hindsight, but are you suggesting that the facts of this case can be applied universally?I'd suggest that the facts in the Halappanavar case alone should be enough to give credence to the priority to the right of life of the mother.0 -
^We'll just have to disagree and leave it at that.
It's all very well to tinker with things intellectually, but to divorce that from the concrete very real consequences of such tinkering is as useless and dangerous as considering the concrete without linking it to the intellectual.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why?zeffabelli wrote: »It's all very well to tinker with things intellectually, but to divorce that from the concrete very real consequences of such tinkering is as useless and dangerous as considering the concrete without linking it to the intellectual.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Perhaps in the Halappanavar case, and with the benefit of hindsight, but are you suggesting that the facts of this case can be applied universally?
The facts of that case are specific so I'm somewhat reluctant to commit that they could be applied universally. There is also the old maxim that hard cases make bad law.
In any event, Savita Halappanavar was miscarrying but the foetus still had a heartbeat. Upon application of the legal standard that the foetus had a right to life equal to its mother, medical treatment was withheld from the mother.
This seems impractical and unreasonable, in the circumstances. With timely medical treatment, Savita Halappanavar could have lived.
Therefore, I'd suggest that equal but conflicting rights to life can create hesitancy and confusion, in cases where medical intervention may be urgently required. If the life of the mother had priority, such a right could provide clarity for all concerned, and perhaps save lives in that way.0 -
Pat Mustard wrote: »The facts of that case are specific so I'm somewhat reluctant to commit that they could be applied universally. There is also the old maxim that hard cases make bad law.
In any event, Savita Halappanavar was miscarrying but the foetus still had a heartbeat. Upon application of the legal standard that the foetus had a right to life equal to its mother, medical treatment was withheld from the mother.
This seems impractical and unreasonable, in the circumstances. With timely medical treatment, Savita Halappanavar could have lived.
Therefore, I'd suggest that equal but conflicting rights to life can create hesitancy and confusion, in cases where medical intervention may be urgently required. If the life of the mother had priority, such a right could provide clarity for all concerned, and perhaps save lives in that way.
Exactly. But what is weird about that case....is that to me it seems that the feotus was given priority....
If the OBs were vulnerable to criminal charges if they aborted, how are they not vulnerable to manslaughter charges for the accidental death of the mother?
They knew the feotus was dying.....
Was there legislation for this already and a matter of medical incomeptence...
Medical decisions are often time senstive too.0 -
zeffabelli wrote: »If the OBs were vulnerable to criminal charges if they aborted, how are they not vulnerable to manslaughter charges for the accidental death of the mother?
Negligent medical treatment isn't the same thing as manslaughter.0 -
Pat Mustard wrote: »Negligent medical treatment isn't the same thing as manslaughter.
No, but when it leads to the death of a patient it can be, gross negligent manslaughter.
Murky and vague area though, hardly enforceable.
Doctors in these particular circumstances like the case you sight are in an impossible situation.0 -
Well, that's what we're discussing. In what circumstances is the life of one person chosen over another? That's where something like the Halappanavar case is a potential problem - it effectively becomes the pro-choice equivalent of pictures of aborted fetuses - yet another appeal to emotion that distracts us from a measured and reasoned assessment of the question.Pat Mustard wrote: »The facts of that case are specific so I'm somewhat reluctant to commit that they could be applied universally. There is also the old maxim that hard cases make bad law.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was one of the issues of the Halappanavar case that the doctors did not believe there was any threat to the life of the mother? If so, how does this affect a similar, future scenario?Therefore, I'd suggest that equal but conflicting rights to life can create hesitancy and confusion, in cases where medical intervention may be urgently required. If the life of the mother had priority, such a right could provide clarity for all concerned, and perhaps save lives in that way.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Well, that's what we're discussing. In what circumstances is the life of one person chosen over another? That's where something like the Halappanavar case is a potential problem - it effectively becomes the pro-choice equivalent of pictures of aborted fetuses - yet another appeal to emotion that distracts us from a measured and reasoned assessment of the question.
Technically, legally....(as much as this is worth....I don't know...another question) a person does not exist until they have a name and a birth certificate. They may exist philosophically, three dimensionally, and morally...but until they are born and those forms are registered with state bodies, are they legal entities?
Ms. Halappanavar was the one who was the patient no? She was the one who paid the consultant? She officially, legally and technically existed.....the feotus did not hire the OB....is she not the one for whom the doctor has a "duty of care?"
It appears we have a conflict between bio-ethics and Irish theocracy.0 -
True, there is a risk of appeal to emotion in relation to that case.The Corinthian wrote: »That's where something like the Halappanavar case is a potential problem - it effectively becomes the pro-choice equivalent of pictures of aborted fetuses - yet another appeal to emotion that distracts us from a measured and reasoned assessment of the question.
Attempting to answer the question objectively, the only answer that I can imagine is to attempt to measure the value of the life of a mother who is an existing member of society versus the life of a foetus who may have the potential to add value to society, in future. I have a general view that a mother should have priority over that of her unborn child in this regard, but I haven't developed this idea any further than that.The Corinthian wrote: »Well, that's what we're discussing. In what circumstances is the life of one person chosen over another?
That is correct. The doctors did not believe that there was a threat to the life of the mother. However, her condition deteriorated very rapidly, this deterioration was not detected, and she died.The Corinthian wrote: »Correct me if I'm wrong, but was one of the issues of the Halappanavar case that the doctors did not believe there was any threat to the life of the mother? If so, how does this affect a similar, future scenario?0 -
There is something I am not understanding in this debate.
Since when do we evaluate and thereby value life based on "potential?' I don't get why this is part of the debate. Potential for what?
Aside from the life of the mother, is it not a cruelty to force a woman to go through the labour of a miscarriage at a 17 week gestation point when they know the feotus is dying and unsavable? What is the point of this?0 -
I don't think that is technically, legally anything anywhere, TBH - outside of the imagination of Terry Gilliam.zeffabelli wrote: »Technically, legally....(as much as this is worth....I don't know...another question) a person does not exist until they have a name and a birth certificate. They may exist philosophically, three dimensionally, and morally...but until they are born and those forms are registered with state bodies, are they legal entities?
That's fair enough, but under what circumstances? Clear threat to her life? Vague threat to her life? No threat at all?Pat Mustard wrote: »Attempting to answer the question objectively, the only answer that I can imagine is to attempt to measure the value of the life of a mother who is an existing member of society versus the life of a foetus who may have the potential to add value to society, in future. I have a general view that a mother should have priority over that of her unborn child in this regard, but I haven't developed this idea any further than that.
The last is important because there is the whole bodily integrity issue to contend with. That can imply no threat whatsoever to the mother's life or health; simply that it is her choice to terminate the pregnancy. That requires a completely different moral argument to the Halappanavar case.
So, it's actually quite a complex area that I think has been oversimplified with slogans.
Which begs the question, would any circumstances other than 'any' stop another case like that? What happens when the rules may be just, but those seeking to impose them incompetent?That is correct. The doctors did not believe that there was a threat to the life of the mother. However, her condition deteriorated very rapidly, this deterioration was not detected, and she died.
I think Pat Mustard was making in his previous post a straightforward utilitarian assessment, which would include future utility of an individual. The quantifiable utility of a mother already taking care of other children, versus an unquantifiable utility of a fetus, who could be born to become the next Einstein, Hitler or Joe Bloggs.zeffabelli wrote: »Since when do we evaluate and thereby value life based on "potential?' I don't get why this is part of the debate. Potential for what?
No point at all I can see. Are all abortion scenarios like this?Aside from the life of the mother, is it not a cruelty to force a woman to go through the labour of a miscarriage at a 17 week gestation point when they know the feotus is dying and unsavable? What is the point of this?0 -
Advertisement
-
I'd agree that it's a complex area and I'd suggest that the slogans tend to add noise and reduce clarity.The Corinthian wrote: »That's fair enough, but under what circumstances? Clear threat to her life? Vague threat to her life? No threat at all?
The last is important because there is the whole bodily integrity issue to contend with. That can imply no threat whatsoever to the mother's life or health; simply that it is her choice to terminate the pregnancy. That requires a completely different moral argument to the Halappanavar case.
So, it's actually quite a complex area that I think has been oversimplified with slogans.
My position is that abortion can be objectively justified where there is risk to the health (not necessarily the life) of the mother, on the basis of an argument that the value of the mother should be greater than that of the foetus.
It is difficult to find an objective moral argument for abortion where there is no threat to the mother whatsoever. Looking at matters from a utilitarian perspective, I cannot think of a convincing objective argument that maximum utility could be achieved by terminating a healthy foetus where there is no risk to the mother. Can you?The Corinthian wrote: »Which begs the question, would any circumstances other than 'any' stop another case like that? What happens when the rules may be just, but those seeking to impose them incompetent??
No matter what the rules may be, it seems likely that if those who attempt to apply them are negligent, there is a risk of damage. However, if those rules are clear, perhaps the risk if misinterpretation of those rules can be reduced and risk of inertia due to fear of misapplication of rules can be reduced.0 -
Bodily integrity is one. We accept that you cannot force someone to donate a non vital organ to another even if it means the death of that other, so the same could apply for a woman's womb. The right to personal bodily interrogate trumps even the right to another's life.Pat Mustard wrote: »It is difficult to find an objective moral argument for abortion where there is no threat to the mother whatsoever. Looking at matters from a utilitarian perspective, I cannot think of a convincing objective argument that maximum utility could be achieved by terminating a healthy foetus where there is no risk to the mother. Can you?
At the same time one could argue that the former is the result of an absence of action as opposed to abortion which is a very much an active action, but even absence of action (e.g. not aiding a dying man on the street) will be seen both as immoral and even illegal.
Personally, I'm presently sitting on the fence on this one - not convinced either way.
True, but there lies a dangerous path. The worst, or best, example of how being 'more safe than sorry' in history can result in the immoral, was the massacre at Béziers in 1209. When asked how would the crusaders know the heretics from the faithful, the Papal legate commanding the army responded with the now overused phrase "kill them all, God will know his own".No matter what the rules may be, it seems likely that if those who attempt to apply them are negligent, there is a risk of damage. However, if those rules are clear, perhaps the risk if misinterpretation of those rules can be reduced and risk of inertia due to fear of misapplication of rules can be reduced.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »I don't think that is technically, legally anything anywhere, TBH - outside of the ima
I think Pat Mustard was making in his previous post a straightforward utilitarian assessment, which would include future utility of an individual. The quantifiable utility of a mother already taking care of other children, versus an unquantifiable utility of a fetus, who could be born to become the next Einstein, Hitler or Joe Bloggs.
I still don't get this in practical terms.
You have to evaluate the life of the mother...not just in terms of her caretaking but also in terms of the value of her life as it is....what if she is an Einstein or Hitler herself...what if she is a school teacher...or a specialist surgeon or whatever have you....vs. the potential of a feotus.
How does anyone even begin to assess that?
Seems cookoo and utterly impossible to apply. I' scrap it.0 -
If she is an Einstein or Hitler herself then that is a known quantity. For the featus, it's purely speculative, but you can still do the math.zeffabelli wrote: »You have to evaluate the life of the mother...not just in terms of her caretaking but also in terms of the value of her life as it is....what if she is an Einstein or Hitler herself...what if she is a school teacher...or a specialist surgeon or whatever have you....vs. the potential of a fetus.
How do you think insurance companies already evaluate people?How does anyone even begin to assess that?
Still better than the "I have a warm fuzzy / icky nasty feeling" argument.Seems cookoo and utterly impossible to apply. I' scrap it.
Bare in mind, this is only one argument, one approach to the question - it's not the only one. Indeed, it already is carried out when carrying out a triage assessment.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »If she is an Einstein or Hitler herself then that is a known quantity. For the featus, it's purely speculative, but you can still do the math.
How do you think insurance companies already evaluate people?
Insurance companies evaluate people based on risk. Not sure what connection you are making here. They are not deciding who to kill and who not to kill.The Corinthian wrote: »Still better than the "I have a warm fuzzy / icky nasty feeling" argument.
Can't see how.The Corinthian wrote: »Bare in mind, this is only one argument, one approach to the question - it's not the only one. Indeed, it already is carried out when carrying out a triage assessment.
Triage assessment is does not assess the value of one life over another. It's an assessment of the condition itself in terms of prioritising admission.
They do not have people take IQ tests to see who is of more potential value or whether the person has six kids to take care of. It's who is bleeding to death vs. who can wait.0 -
Firstly, not solely risk, but also value. Secondly, do you need to kill someone to valuate them?zeffabelli wrote: »Insurance companies evaluate people based on risk. Not sure what connection you are making here. They are not deciding who to kill and who not to kill.
Because I think it's a silly icky way to decide things and that's that.Can't see how.
...and that's why it's daft.
It still prioritizes one life over another, at the end of the day. That is what we're discussing, is it not?Triage assessment is does not assess the value of one life over another. It's an assessment of the condition itself in terms of prioritising admission.0 -
Firstly, not solely risk, but also value. Secondly, do you need to kill someone to valuate them?[/QUOTE]
No but this is about which life to choose is it not...have no idea why you are bringing insurance into it. Irrelevent digression.The Corinthian wrote: »Because I think it's a silly icky way to decide things and that's that.
No because they are both unworkable forms of discernment.The Corinthian wrote: »It still prioritizes one life over another, at the end of the day. That is what we're discussing, is it not?
No they are not choosing one life over the other. They are discerning which injury takes priority in the queue.
Big difference.0 -
No, you asked about how can one assess these values. I've responded. If you want to change the question, please let me know what the new question is.zeffabelli wrote: »No but this is about which life to choose is it not...have no idea why you are bringing insurance into it. Irrelevent digression.
Firstly, all you've done is said you don't like such assesments. You've not demonstrated that they are unworkable.No because they are both unworkable forms of discernment.
Secondly, I said that an emotional approach is a silly icky way to decide things, so I can't be wrong. After all, I used an emotional approach to do so. You can rightly point out that this is a nonsensical way of arguing, but if you do, you'll be proving my point.
They are still setting values, ultimately on their lives, and that is what you asked about.No they are not choosing one life over the other. They are discerning which injury takes priority in the queue.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »No, you asked about how can one assess these values. I've responded. If you want to change the question, please let me know what the new question is.
Firstly, all you've done is said you don't like such assesments. You've not demonstrated that they are unworkable.
Secondly, I said that an emotional approach is a silly icky way to decide things, so I can't be wrong. After all, I used an emotional approach to do so. You can rightly point out that this is a nonsensical way of arguing, but if you do, you'll be proving my point.
They are still setting values, ultimately on their lives, and that is what you asked about.
No you aren't valuing their lives, you are prioritising the injuries.
Evaluating a an adult woman's life compared to the potential of a foetus. If this is workable, explain how. What criteria are you going to use?
And then please explain how those criteria and evaluations are anye less emotionally based?0 -
Advertisement
-
Ultimately you're still valuing their lives.zeffabelli wrote: »No you aren't valuing their lives, you are prioritising the injuries.
Pat offered one criteria; that the woman in his example was already caring for other offspring. This meant that her death would result in those other offspring also suffering.Evaluating a an adult woman's life compared to the potential of a foetus. If this is workable, explain how. What criteria are you going to use?
Actually, they're utilitarian - quite the opposite of an emotional assessment.And then please explain how those criteria and evaluations are anye less emotionally based?0
Advertisement