Right to die with dignity - Page 6

Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*

Most people, when they reach that "end", do not have the mental stability to make that kind of decisions. As said as a patient living off of life support is to us, there is no way to ask him/her what kind of fate they wish to choose. The situation is a bad one from both ends - whether it be the burden the sick is giving to his/her family or the selfish desire of the family to hold onto the patient instead of letting go. You can't do anything in that case.

My family personally knows of a lady who was on life support for over a year, I believe. Her family decided to take her off and let go. And just when they were ready to let go, doctors found that she was able to live off of life support. She lived on a few more years after that before she passed away last year. You can call it a miracle or whatever, but I guess things like that happen.

Yes it is true. Life seems so fragile at times but it can suddenly rebound.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

But is all knowledge worth having? Are we intended to know everything? I'll admit I have a contradictory stance. I am yes for the former, because by nature I am a curious child. I want to know more and more. However, I do feel that sometimes we overstep the boundaries of knowledge.

[A] just knowing more and more only for curiosity sake without application of that knowledge is a futile exercise

How far are we willing to go in the quest for knowledge?

I would say, as far as practicable

These humans with birth defects. Mothers carrying children. Are we willing to pull many of them aside for exclusive and full scientific research.

Its not only for research work but also the emotional aspect attached to it. If we give up completely on our emotional aspects then we lose a very imp part of being human. It is wrong to presume that mothers would stop loving their child if the child happens to be afflicted by some disorder. I had quoted the eg of the conjoint Schapell twins . Inspite of their 'deformity' they were loved by their parents who took good care of them and the twins grew up against all odds to be happy and well adjusted 'individuals' with a zest for life which is saying more than for some 'normal' individuals !

A mother goes in for abortion of a foetus with defect when she feels incapable of being able to carry on the responsibility of rearing that child due to various factors but a mother who is compassionate and confident enough will go through with the pregnancy and take on the responsibility of rearing up that child. Thats individual decision. Not being moralistic here.

Woot, this is like people vs. Larry Flynt. Fortunately, I am not Larry Flynt. Unfortunately, I did not make a fortune. Anyway, all alone on one side of the debate. Not had that happen for a while. Let me get to this.

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

We can reason, think logically, solve problems and have better communication mechanisms than any other species we know. It's possible that some animals have unique skills that aid them better and but it's our combination of well rounded skills couple with a highly developed frontal cortex in the brain that makes us reign supreme.




The fact that ever since we "descended" on earth, we ruled.



Drilling a hole in the ozone, dropping atomic bombs over one another and spilling oil all over the gulf have nothing to do with killing babies with birth defects. And you can't offer that as an argument to discredit intelligence either. We are not omniscient. We are learning by trial and error. If ozone depletion is a problem, we will enact appropriate regulations. If atomic bombs are a problem, we will enact non-proliferation treaties. If spilling oil is a problem, we will be careful the next time.

1) Alright based on the accepted definition of 'intelligence' we are perhaps the most 'intellectually developed' species on earth. But how did we determine that this intelligence is a sign of superiority, and that the ways and norms of our species is actually far superior and better in the ecosphere and larger scheme of things.

2) Cockroaches have ruled the earth, before us and will after us.

3) These examples may have nothing to do with babies and birth defects. My point is that our human methods have not exactly proven fruitful to humans let alone the greater balance of nature. Population explosion is a problem, how have we fixed it? Through human existence we have done nothing but extend leases of life on people who would have otherwise succumbed to disease and death, constantly using our intelligence to battle against every natural force that threatens our existence.

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

While Jonathan Swift was satirical, you are being real.

You bet. Whatever happens, never let the moral compass waver.

A grownup taking a decision for himself/herself is not the same as a grownup taking a decision for a baby. As far as I am concerned, the baby, once born, is a human unto itself, fully equipped with rights.

As for the rest of the stuff about knowledge and who prevails over who, nature or humans, I will excuse myself to tackle it at a later time. Hopefully.

1) Yes. Jonathan Swift wrote a satire. I just like the name modest proposal.

2) My moral compass tells me that compassion without reason has its place, and even higher place at times, but sometimes in the we have to let go of our emotional attachments and view matters in a more cold hard manner for long term benefits to us, humanity, and our planet.

3) We still don't give infants the rights as full adults. With children and incapacitated adults, another adult makes the decision. If they want to sustain a child or a loved one, I am not against it. I support the free will of the decision makers. I am merely proposing - seriously consider the alternative and make it acceptable.

Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*

What are we - living in 1984? Are you trying to create a brave new world of sorts?!? I hope you realize that voluntary abortion of infants with serious congenital defects is not "following the course of nature". Take Down Syndrome for example: fetuses with Down Syndrome and other severe mental disorders are sometimes naturally aborted during the pregnancy because nature decides that they are not "fit" enough to survive. But there are a number of infants who are given birth with Down Syndrome that nature thinks should be given a chance. Those born with these severe mental disorders are the ones that nature has "allowed" to come into the world, so they actually are following the course of nature.

I am not criticizing parents who abort infants with Down Syndrome or any other severe mental disorder because it is a tough life for both the child and the parents, but to say that nature intended it to be that way is just a false means of satisfying oneself.

No, I am aware that voluntary abortion or euthanasia is not at all following the course of nature. In nature either a birth occurs or the fetus is naturally aborted. However, in nature every creature has to compete and pull its rank to survive. A liability is only sustained as long as feasible. A liability is also sacrificed for the greater good of the pack. The weak also lose mating rights and have to fight to mate.

We humans nurture - we don't make our infants compete or pull rank to survive.
We go against all odds to sustain a liability.
We never sacrifice a liability for greater good.
There is no mating hierarchy based on survival.

This is unusual in comparison to other mammalian species. Primitive human cultures did display some of these harsh behaviors. We have made a conscious choice to let our technology and emotional attachments override some natural mammalian behaviors and orders.

Most humans feel this is the right thing to do. I personally have doubts if this intrusion on our parts is actually for long term good of our species or the planet. Thats why I'm proposing voluntary abortions, humane terminations - instead of letting perish, fight to survive or be abandoned in the garbage. Curious, fight or flight syndrome still makes human mothers do things like abandon an infant in garbage, throw in river or even kill.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

2) Cockroaches have ruled the earth, before us and will after us.

You: On what basis did we determine that the ways and norms of humans is preferred and proven better on this earth?
Me: The fact that ever since we "descended" on earth, we ruled.
You: Cockroaches have ruled the earth, before us and will after us.
Me: What roaches did wouldn't be considered ruling. It would considered living. On the other hand what we did would be considered ruling as in exerting control and influence on the major food and water resources of this planet. Dinosaurs ruled once. We rule now. We are atop the food chain.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

1) Alright based on the accepted definition of 'intelligence' we are perhaps the most 'intellectually developed' species on earth. But how did we determine that this intelligence is a sign of superiority, and that the ways and norms of our species is actually far superior and better in the ecosphere and larger scheme of things.

How do you go from "terminating" babies with birth defects to ecosphere and ecology? I thought we are talking about adapting ways and norms as in advancing the interests of our species for attaining higher survival rates. You offered, as part of your plan, "terminating" babies with birth defects and cited examples, as limited as they were, from the animal kingdom. I rejected that plan on the grounds that we don't have to learn from the rest of the animals in this particular context because we survived just fine and thrived and none of that surviving and thriving required "termination" of babies with birth defects.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

3) These examples may have nothing to do with babies and birth defects. My point is that our human methods have not exactly proven fruitful to humans let alone the greater balance of nature. Population explosion is a problem, how have we fixed it?

If you are citing population explosion, you are undermining your own defense and bolstering my argument. Population explosion in the context of natural selection is a good thing. Population extinction would be a bad thing.

Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*

Animals do provide clear examples of Darwin's survival of the fittest theory. However, I also hope that you realize that labeling humans as the more superior species is not just a sign of human arrogance, but also a scientifically proven fact. There are some animals that are considered to have very complex brains, similar to humans. But what makes a human brain more advanced are the areas of abstract thought, self-awareness, and self-expression. Human cognition specifically differs with animal cognition in that humans have the ability to recombine old and new information to process and gain a new understanding. Humans have the ability to relate internal and external experiences and a greater ability to recognize inner feelings and relate them to others. We can relate the past, present, and future, allowing us the ability to make choices.

What good is that ability to "choose" if we are going to behave like other animals?

There is a saying "history is written by the victors".

The human species is fascinating. In many ways we are more advanced and probably more intelligent than a lot of other species. No other species has created as complex technologies, cultures and societies like we have. However, I think we humans created this science and knowledge as a frame of reference. It is our view of looking at the world. In our frame of reference we are proven to be more capable than others. I'm not sure if it proves that we are superior to everything else on earth.

To me it seems that virus and cockroach despite being much lower life forms have a species longevity that we do not. In raw nature as it originally existed what is most important or superior - intellect or instinct. Microbes have neither is it sheer survivability? I'm not sure we know the answer.

I personally feel that for humans it is a combination of intellect and instinct, and I feel we are tipping too much in favor of instinct. I'm not asking people to ignore their ability or intellect to choose. But as mammals, as creatures we are supposed to have inbuilt instincts and survival skills, an animistic part of our nature - since we are born with it - perhaps that has value too.

I often ponder on our intellect when I am around my pets. Yeah I'm probably one of those crazy animal loonies. For some reason my dog and cats seem to understand and obey certain commands. I'm sure they don't actually understand the language I speak. Cesar Milan says they have instinct. While my dog somehow seems to obey and listen when I speak, I for the life of me cannot get what the heck she says when she barks. It kind of makes me feel stupid because Aria can understand RTH but RTH cannot understand Aria.

Animals know when there is a forest fire. Fish leave waters and animals leave areas when tsunamis are coming. Animals have been used to predict earthquakes. We don't seem to be aware of many of this.

Coming to instinct and humans - there was a time if a baby cried - the mom knew exactly what the cry was poop, food, or being tired or just wanting mommy. I saw my mom raise my sister, somehow she always knew why that lump of flesh was making inhumane sounds and could shut it. Parents instinctual knew whether their kids were being good or bad - even if the kids hid it. Nowadays humans dont even have instincts about each other. It is all about intellect and technology - we forget we are humans. Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Mammalia (Thats all I remember from the Betty White rap)😆

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

If you are citing population explosion, you are undermining your own defense and bolstering my argument. Population explosion in the context of natural selection is a good thing. Population extinction would be a bad thing.

Explosion and extinction are two undesirable alternatives. Too many wolves and too few deer, will eventually lead the deer and then the wolves to extinction. Balance is the key. Just enough deer to feed the wolves, just enough wolves to hunt the deer. Balance is obtained when the wolf pack makes choices and sacrifices. They keep competitive numbers.

If they harbored all the weak and incapacitated wolves and sustained them no matter what. Then the hunting wolves are working twice, killing more deer to sustain these non contributing wolves. Then if they let the weak wolves breed in the spare time while the rest of the pack hunts we have more and more weak wolves burdening the few good wolves who have to sustain the pack. Few years down the line even though the quality of wolves is low, but there are so many that they can easily flank a deer and hunt with ease.

Net result: Deer extinction
Next result: Wolf extinction

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Explosion and extinction are two undesirable alternatives. Too many wolves and too few deer, will eventually lead the deer and then the wolves to extinction. Balance is the key. Just enough deer to feed the wolves, just enough wolves to hunt the deer. Balance is obtained when the wolf pack makes choices and sacrifices. They keep competitive numbers.

If they harbored all the weak and incapacitated wolves and sustained them no matter what. Then the hunting wolves are working twice, killing more deer to sustain these non contributing wolves. Then if they let the weak wolves breed in the spare time while the rest of the pack hunts we have more and more weak wolves burdening the few good wolves who have to sustain the pack. Few years down the line even though the quality of wolves is low, but there are so many that they can easily flank a deer and hunt with ease.

Net result: Deer extinction
Next result: Wolf extinction

You are vacillating. You have now weaned yourself away from that one single point (terminating babies with birth defects) that irked me so much that I am continuing posting past my expiry date.

The cardinal sin I see in this particular post of yours is that you are once again comparing a highly "evolved", highly conscious species to a species such as wolves.

I refute that point by saying that wolves can't manufacture food where as humans can.