Right to die with dignity - Page 8

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

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

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

Funny you mention that. The human brain is also unique in that they have the ability to process abstract reasoning and complex language. By comparison [most] animal "language" is limited not just in vocabulary, but also in cultural differences between different groups. By suggesting that history is written by the victors - humans - you're implying that the "losers" (ie animals) have this ability to begin with. And since dinosaurs did not leave behind long accounts of their daily lives, I think we can safely assume that reading/writing are abilities unique to humans.

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.

But you keep shifting away from man to man-made things. Forget man-made/discovered technology, culture, and society - what about just the human brain and what its capable of? Does that not immediately set us apart from the rest of the species? It isn't even necessary for you to bring up technology or other things that man has done - looking at the human brain's capacity is enough to notice a clear difference between humans and other animals.

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 don't think longevity has much to do with capability and more to do with their size and ability to withstand different environments. Although they have very sharp senses, I don't think we can associate a cockroach's long life with wisdom, per se.

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 don't think instinct has disappeared - we still do many things based on our natural instincts. But intellect is also, to some extent, inherent in the human bind. Although undeveloped, they have the capability or potential for abstract thought at birth.

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.

RTH can understand Aria, too. RTH knows when she's hungry, or when she needs to go out for a walk, or when she wants to play ... all of that is RTH "understanding" Aria, although no words or language may be exchanged.

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.

Many animals do possess these unique skills and abilities that humans don't. Definitely not denying that, but man is also a complex creature. Superiority and intelligence are subjective, you can say. Perhaps you think the ability to predict earthquakes is more "intelligent" than the ability for self-expression. It all comes down to our definitions of intelligence.

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)😆

I think mothers are still just as instinctual about their babies as they were before. I don't think technology can stop instincts from occurring. Intellect only makes those instincts stronger by allowing further reasoning.

Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*

It is late. I'll try to keep my response short. 😆

Hopefully, I'll address some points from your next post too. Let me know if you still have questions. Which I know you will, plus some counterpoints.

@red:
If you accept that we, as humans, have the ability to nurture, protect infants, sustain these "liabilities", and not feel the need to make sacrifices for the "greater good" of the pack, then why are you still supporting voluntary abortion of infants with birth defects? Shouldn't the ability to nurture hold some amount of significance? Shouldn't it be the reason to set us apart from the rest of the animals?

I think we have ingrained ourselves with the notion that nurturing is better than a practical approach to greater good. There is a twofold reason in my support of eugenics as well as euthanasia.

1) Life with terminal illness or certain diseases is extremely painful and difficult. For the sufferers, caretakers as well as medical staff. Sustaining these lives often merely prolongs the suffering.
2) Society really has no practical gain or benefit from sustaining these lives other than a misplaced sense of moral righteousness. It takes a lot of time, effort and money to take care of these. Efforts better invested in more practical human interests and issues.

My approach to eugenics is this
1) Mandatory tests for people before marriages/planning for pregnancy to minimize risks of birth defects & diseases. First priority is to avert the problem instead of trying to solve it.
2) Monitor pregnancy closely to terminate such birth as soon as possible.

To me the benefits of Eugenics is
1) Such a method eliminates defects in the gene pool as soon as possible
2) Only the healthiest humans are let to live and survive and breed. Hopefully, evolving into a healthier humans.
3) Saving a lot of infrastructure and resources that goes into sustaining the weaker of the species.

Think about it, in the workplace we only want hard working individuals. We hate it when the slackers and dead weight are as equitable as us. In a team we want everyone to pull their weight and perform. A team can't have one player doing nothing. In school we want to be rewarded on merit. Not for the school to push anyone and everyone through and give them that prestigious degree. Throughout our life we run on merit. We want to recognize and reward those who work, those who perform, those who give it their all. When this does not take place, we object or criticize when people without merit get things.

Infants with certain conditions are biological dead weight. They will not be able to live a normal healthy life every at all. Many times the life will be short, painful and full of suffering. They will not be able to contribute as healthy members of society will. I'm not stating that just because someone has a handicap or a developmental disability they are dead weight. The threshold for me is merit, contribution and the ability to be healthy equitable members of society and not dependents who could not sustain without perpetual assistance from others.

Now I am not saying that Eugenics should be the norm or telling people to completely set aside their emotions. What I am saying is that if we are the reasonable beings we are, lets consider both options equitably. Don't balk at one choice only at the thought of it. Carefully weigh out the pros and cons. At least give Eugenics some practical pragmatic thought. In the end its a choice made. We cannot force abortion or euthanasia. We can make provisions for members of society who think and choose otherwise.


@bold:
Things like that happen even with babies who are born without any defects - mothers still abandon their young for no reason. You're digressing now. Are you shifting this debate to discuss voluntary abortions (w or w/o defect) then?

I meant it in that very context. Mothers abandon babies for no good reason. Perfectly healthy babies with absolutely no issues. Sometimes by perfectly healthy mothers who did not have any issues. I was trying to show that we still posses the rationale that 'if its hard to sustain it, we let go of it'

No I'm not trying to bring up voluntary abortion. Did I not promise you once, I won't try and sneak it into any topic? I plan to stick by it. 😊 I'm planning on discussing only birth defects because it is tied with 'right to die with dignity' as in can we choose to let a baby die if they won't have a shot at life with dignity (my definitions above).

No where I did digress is the comparison of humans with other mammals. I think in the Q&A between that comparison, I lost focus and strayed away from the true context of this debate.

The context in which I brought the comparison is that when you look at practical greater good of the species, letting go is better than sustaining at times. Other mammals maybe different on many levels, but there are many levels of similarities too. Even mammals can sustain if they choose too. A pack can sustain weak ones or ones with instabilities or defects if they want to. I also pointed out many animals do have lame, blind, deaf members of the herd. However, when it boils down to a hard choice they make the choice. Even civilized humans, living in collective societies behaved in this way until they found technologies to sustain weakness. Many humans (like me) still propose Eugenics as a practical approach. The point was to show that Eugenics is not a scary alien idea. It is a very practical approach, practically acted upon in nature and once by humans too.

Now if you disagree with the context of that comparison, there is nothing much I can do. I would be continuing on a different debate (which I already did). I think I've made several points in a non-animal-comparison context too that is more in sync with this debate.

Although as a quick note on the digressed discussion. We can only view the world from our human frame of reference and somethings will be clearly greater or lesser in our view, and somethings may have blurrier views of greater or lesser. However, I feel in the context of earth as a whole biosphere, or even the universe as a whole - we will never know which skills and abilities are most important or superior - or what is best for a species in the long run. Like my favorite example - cockroaches (because I hate them and wish all of them in this world could be squashed this second). Anyway cockroaches are far from highly evolved beings, but they have some pretty cool skills like surviving nuclear holocausts, living with their heads chopped off. Most of us would not want to be a cockroach. They are ugly, filthy, creepy, creatures and have absolutely none of the great things we have. Like they won't be able to speak for themselves on IF (If they do, they shall be banned). But if we were to head to the guillotine or have a global nuclear meltdown - it might be better to be a cockroach. Point - we will never know how significant/insignificant - important/unimportant we are in the universe or the greater scheme of things. We can at best guess go by what we believe to be our best possible knowledge and guess.

Yes, that was not a quick note. Nor is this a short post and yes I am way past bedtime.