where do you draw the line?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : rebecca blood : One Thread

A Princeton bioethics professor's conviction that parents should have the right to euthanize severely disabled newborns is drawing protest. "Peter's strength is making us rethink our first, fundamental ideas," (Paul) Armstrong said. "His weakness is trying to translate that into public policy."

To state my opinion as succinctly as I can: I am pro-choice (if only to keep women and girls safe from self-inflicted and and back-alley abortions); and this idea horrifies me. The value I find in this article is twofold. First, I realize that my reaction to his statements is identical to that of a pro-lifer's reaction to abortion--and I've long maintained that if you believed abortion was murder, you would be obligated at least to try to change the minds of those who disagreed with you.* Second, it makes me consider where I do draw the line, and why; and I believe it's essential that I periodically consider and re-evaluate my assumptions and beliefs.

*I think that pro-lifers and pro-choicers would be most effective by working together in preventing unwanted pregnancies by making birth control available to whomever wants it, and by promoting responsible sexual activity. To me, this means consistently using birth control each time you have sex, unless you are prepared to (happily) have a child, and abstaining from sexual activity if, for whatever reason--including religious belief--it's not right for you at that time.



-- rebecca blood (rebecca@rebeccablood.net), September 23, 1999

Answers

carlos said: > >where do you draw the line? > Your question suggests that there must be a limit, and the issue is > where one places that limit. For so called pro-lifers they simply do > draw a line and pro-choicers don't.

I don't agree with you here. There are thoughtful people on both sides of this issue, and I think that many in the pro-choice camp--like myself--have thought hard, and often, about what they think is right, and why; even the laws as they stand draw a lines at the first and second trimesters of a pregnancy, with different rules for each.

> > it's essential that I periodically consider and > > re-evaluate my assumptions and beliefs. > I agree, and I feel you must do this from a "principled" position > while keeping an open mind.

I absolutely agree. I do try to keep an open mind, and to evaluate my principles as questions are raised. It's always a challenge.... For a while I used to pick up a local new-age paper from time to time, simply because I knew that *something* in it would challenge my assumptions. :)

> I am finding it hard to think of a situation in which I could be > convinced of euthanizing a born child.

Jesse added: > If you're bringing a new life into the world only to have that life > filled with unending suffering, I'd say you can make a case for > euthanasia.

I don't know. Sure, you could make a *case* for it, but I know that I couldn't possibly make this decision. Maybe I'd spend the rest of my life racked with sorrow that my child was in such pain--maybe even racked with guilt that I hadn't done something about it--but I know I couldn't live with myself if I chose to euthanize a newborn.

>The question is: who gets to make that call?

Exactly. Who gets to decide, and who gets to decide that the disability warrants this extreme measure?

This would be a terrible, painful question, and it's one that I'm simply not prepared to ask myself.

-- rebecca blood (rebecca@rebeccablood.net), September 23, 1999.


> where do you draw the line? Your question suggests that there must be a limit, and the issue is where one places that limit. For so called pro-lifers they simply do draw a line and pro-choicers don't. I do not align myself with either camp. The idea that terminating a life can be discretionary repulses me. At the same time I believe there are circumstances in which there is no other reasonable option, where the alternative is even more repulsive.

> it's essential that I periodically consider and > re-evaluate my assumptions and beliefs. I agree, and I feel you must do this from a "principled" position while keeping an open mind. Maybe this sounds like a contradiction, Mh.

I am finding it hard to think of a situation in which I could be convinced of euthanizing a born child. How does this professor classify "severely disabled newborns"? Are these not detectable during pregnancy? Would he euthanize also severely disabled elders? accident victims?

-- Carlos Tirado (carlos@tremendo.com), September 23, 1999.


I'm not opposed to euthanizing newborns in certain cases; the trouble is in identifying *which* cases. If you're bringing a new life into the world only to have that life filled with unending suffering, I'd say you can make a case for euthanasia. But if it's just a matter of the child's handicap being an inconvenience for the parents, then absolutely not. The question is: who gets to make that call? The parents? A bureucrat? A doctor? A judge?

-- Jesse James Garrett (jjg@jjg.net), September 23, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ