The peter pan surgury

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
So your saying that a fetus has no rights? Whats your hang up with allowing the mother to cure it of homosexuality in the womb?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I'm just kinda playing devil's advocate; as of right now I don't have a problem with the gay cure thing, but I also think your assertion that no gay cure = no abortion is complete bunk.

[ QUOTE ]
The unborn don't have any rights in this country. If your hypothetical couple concieve a child with a genetic defect, amniocentesis will reveal it and they can just abort the child. End of problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're dodging the question. Assume that abortion is illegal or that the woman is medically unable to have one for some reason. Now what? Does supporting contraception mean that you must support the use of this drug near conception?

[MaxWeiss]

My objection or approval of it would once I know all the relevant facts and data and thoughts of those involved, would stem from the amount of brain damage the girl has. Is she capable of understanding what is going on around her and what the surgery will do and why the parents are doing it?? How self aware is she???

Without answers to those, I can't make a clear judgment; however, given that she has been said to have "severe" brain damage and the fact that the parents are attempting to reduce their own suffering without causing her much, and that they think they can make her happier as well, I would support it.

Heep in mind, Stu, this is a separate question from the gay cure, which will affect a person capable of understanding what has happened to them, and whose parents (without any specific data to the exact case) are otherwise perfectly capable of raising them. (And even though I am against the gay cure, I would of course insist on a case by case basis and would certainly find exceptions.)

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont wanna start a huge debate here but your implying that future growth/ future ability plays some factor in this decision. why is the future of an entity often dismissed in abortion debate? (not saying you specificaly b/c i dont know your stances, but in general)

[/ QUOTE ]

The distinction is that in abortion you are simply disposing of clumps of cells or even a young baby not yet capable of thinking or feeling.

When you have a gay cure, or make the woman have the child, or whatever, you are not deciding whether a few cells have rights, you are deciding the lifetime happiness and suffering of a future sentient being which will (with a much higher probability) exist. It WILL exist, and you are infringing on HOW. With abortion, you are preventing the existence in the first place---the potential being will never happen and won't have the chance to suffer or even know anything has happened. When we know a being will very likely exist in the future, we have moral obligations towards its happiness and suffering. But as to preventing its existence in the first place--that's a different question.

While you know my feelings about it, even if you disagree, its important to recognize that the two questions ARE SEPARATE. "To exist or not to exist?" is a different question from "given existence, how should one be allowed to live??" They are different questions; they just are. There's no good argument to merge them.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
'Is her case different because at no point in her life will she ever be an independent human adult? She will never be able to care for herself, so do other people have a more direct stake in her medical decisions? It would certainly seem that way."

I dont wanna start a huge debate here but your implying that future growth/ future ability plays some factor in this decision. why is the future of an entity often dismissed in abortion debate? (not saying you specificaly b/c i dont know your stances, but in general)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are comparing apples and oranges, but I don't necessarily feel like disabusing you, so I'll just say that I consider future growth in this case AS WELL AS in abortion cases, I suppose. Its just that it doesn't matter a lick in abortion cases, and it is crucial to cases like this.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont wanna start a huge debate here but your implying that future growth/ future ability plays some factor in this decision. why is the future of an entity often dismissed in abortion debate? (not saying you specificaly b/c i dont know your stances, but in general)

[/ QUOTE ]

Its dimissed out of convience. If a fetus has future rights that need to be protected today that makes it pretty much impossible justify abortion on demand. Of course if you want to stop the development of an in the womb cure for homosexuality, well then all those future rights the fetus has magically need protection again.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you may feel free to stop making this assertion. I can justify abortion regardless of what rights we assign to the fetus. I am willing to grant your position that the fetus is equal in every way to a full grown human person. I don't really think thats true, at least not at all stages of development, but I don't care. It does nothing to my position on abortion.

Perhaps some or most people who support abortion fit into this caricature that you have described, where the fundamental point is that fetuses aren't really human. But it isn't even CLOSE to being a necessary component of a pro-choice position.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You never did respond to my proposition in that thread that the fetus' rights could be nonexistent until it is decided to let them mature to humanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the statement from the other thread you were referring too.

[ QUOTE ]
What if those protesting this kind of treatement are merely acting with the future person in mind? In other words, a fetus has no rights until we take it for granted that it will eventually be a person?

Not saying that's my position, but it's possibly a consistent one to have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it be consistent to demand the immeadiate execution of an alleged criminal and then protest that the persons rights were violated because he/she never got to stand trial?

If a fetus has future rights that require protection then you cannot be in favor of abortion on demand. You might have women aborting fetuses who should otherwise be protected. On one hand you're saying you can't "cure" that fetus because it has a right to grow up to be a happy homosexual and on the other hand your saying that fetus has no right to grow up to be anything at all.

If you say you're in favor of "pro choice" becuase no woman should endure a pregnancy they do not want, how can you come back and say to the next woman "even though you don't want to bring a homosexual into this world, were going to make you do it(if you really want that baby)". You can't be "pro choice" and "no choice" at the same time.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference here, but maybe it is too subtle? Or perhaps you are purposely ignoring it. The choice that the woman has is to agree to be complicit in the incubation and birth of the fetus, or not. It simply does not follow from this that the woman has the choice to engineer her baby in any way she deems necessary.

Your point SHOULD be that we can't really be against genetic engineering if we allow women to select their mates. At least this position is consistent.

Abortion has nothing to do with genetic engineering. Sexual selection does. Argue it on that front, or else you are grasping at straws.

[HeavilyArmed]

I just don't see how they missed these possibilities:

"Listen, tell you what. I'll file its legs down a bit, take its snout out, stick a few wires through its cheeks. There you are, a lovely pussy cat."

or

"I'll tell you what though ... I'll lop its back legs off, make good, strip the fur, stick a couple of wings on and staple on a beak of your own choice. No problem. Lovely parrot."

maybe...

"Tell you what though, for free, terriers make lovely fish. I mean I could do that for you straight away. Legs off, fins on, stick a little pipe through the back of its neck so it can breathe, bit of gold paint, make good ...

Do not mistake the above humor as mitigating my disgust.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see how they missed these possibilities:

"Listen, tell you what. I'll file its legs down a bit, take its snout out, stick a few wires through its cheeks. There you are, a lovely pussy cat."

or

"I'll tell you what though ... I'll lop its back legs off, make good, strip the fur, stick a couple of wings on and staple on a beak of your own choice. No problem. Lovely parrot."

maybe...

"Tell you what though, for free, terriers make lovely fish. I mean I could do that for you straight away. Legs off, fins on, stick a little pipe through the back of its neck so it can breathe, bit of gold paint, make good ...

Do not mistake the above humor as mitigating my disgust.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we sometimes give kids drugs to prevent sickling crises too! Such monsters we are.

Oh wait, I forgot to describe a medical treatment using unflattering metaphor and analogy so as to make it sound like a horrific, barbaric procedure that no one would ever want.

Episiotomy.

There, that's better.