Abortion

[Danoff]

I meant before they were 18. I know American adults have to fund their own health, but children belong to the country presumably? It would be pretty barbaric otherwise

Health care for children is the responsibility of the parents. A child could easily raise money through charity though if their parents were refusing something - especially if it were a refusal on religious grounds.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Health care for children is the responsibility of the parents. A child could easily raise money through charity though if their parents were refusing something - especially if it were a refusal on religious grounds.

This child is unable to make its own motion for aid, the parents won't allow medical intervention.

The state will step in and remove the child from them, surely? And then it will have the medical care it requires in loco parentis. You don't even need a very advanced civilization to have that, society is about continuous self-improvement which is why health and education are at the core of it.

 

[Danoff]

This child is unable to make its own motion for aid, the parents won't allow medical intervention.

That's why I said "no".

The state will step in and remove the child from them, surely?

No. The US government wouldn't - to do so would create a wild precedent. We're going to take your child if you have certain religious beliefs? That's about as anti-american an idea as I can think of considering that the country was founded by those seeking relief from religious oppression.

And then it will have the medical care it requires in loco parentis. You don't even need a very advanced civilization to have that, society is about continuous self-improvement which is why health and education are at the core of it.

Government exists to preserve human rights - not promote some subjective notion of self-improvement.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No. The US government wouldn't - to do so would create a wild precedent.

100 years late? Hardly.

We're going to take your child if you have certain religious beliefs?

Yes, as already demonstrated in case law right across the US, mostly when that statement can be coupled with "we're going to take your child if your beliefs will lead to its harm or death".

I can't believe you'd think it's not okay for the state to remove a child in those circumstances?

Government exists to preserve human rights - not promote some subjective notion of self-improvement.

No no no no no. That makes a government a simple police force, not a voice of the people. The USA can't be compared to most countries because of its very low population density, but in most modern societies states support health, community and education as a priority alongside infrastructure and investment. That's a given.

The USA would hardly set a precedent by deciding that people who can't defend themselves from harm are entitled to state support.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, as already demonstrated in case law right across the US, mostly when that statement can be coupled with "we're going to take your child if your beliefs will lead to its harm or death".

Their actions aren't leading to harm or death in this hypothetical, an illness is.

I can't believe you'd think it's not okay for the state to remove a child in those circumstances?

It's fine to remove a child in those circumstances. It's not fine to remove a child because someone has religious beliefs against particular technologies.

No no no no no. That makes a government a simple police force, not a voice of the people.

Turns out it doesn't.

The USA can't be compared to most countries because of its very low population density, but in most modern societies states support health, community and education as a priority alongside infrastructure and investment. That's a given.

Yes, most modern societies violate human rights (including the US).

The USA would hardly set a precedent by deciding that people who can't defend themselves from harm are entitled to state support.

We don't know what the child's wishes are.

 

[KSaiyu]

That's why I said "no".

Someone has to protect the interests of the child in that instance, even if it assumes that the child in the future would weigh up the ramifications of accepting their parent's religious beliefs and would have accepted their fate. The child doesn't have capacity at that time and their parent's opinions can't infringe on their right to a possible life free from pain.

This is dangerously close to saying we could dispose of infants if both parents agree that it is hindering their quality of life.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This is dangerously close to saying we could dispose of infants if both parents agree that it is hindering their quality of life.

I've got to agree that what @Danoff says makes me feel morally very uncomfortable.

We don't know what the child's wishes are.

We know that when people wish to die we consider them to be mentally ill in almost all circumstances. We can save the baby and restore its quality of life to be pain-free, fully-able and happy.

Does that change your view?

 

[Danoff]

Someone has to protect the interests of the child in that instance, even if it assumes that the child in the future would weigh up the ramifications of accepting their parent's religious beliefs and would have accepted their fate. The child doesn't have capacity at that time and their parent's opinions can't infringe on their right to a possible life free from pain.

This is dangerously close to saying we could dispose of infants if both parents agree that it is hindering their quality of life.

And yet it's not the same thing. I aid parents can refuse certain medical technologies for their children, and we don't know that the child would do otherwise.

I've got to agree that what @Danoff says makes me feel morally very uncomfortable.

Feel being the operative word.

(See what I did there?)

We know that when people wish to die we consider them to be mentally ill in almost all circumstances. We can save the baby and restore its quality of life to be pain-free, fully-able and happy.

Does that change your view?

Why would that change my view?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Feel being the operative word.

In a couple of ways, some that make me more squeamish than others. A moral opinion is only an opinion after all.

Why would that change my view?

I shouldn't presume to say, that's why I simply asked if it changed your view? I'd be interested to know the reason for your opinion either way.

 

[Danoff]

I shouldn't presume to say, that's why I simply asked if it changed your view? I'd be interested to know the reason for your opinion either way.

Whether or not people wish to die or whether or not those people are subjectively considered mentally ill has no bearing on when people have rights. Also our ability to do something has no bearing on whether it violates rights, or whether the people involved have rights.

So it all looks totally irrelevant to me.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We know that when people wish to die we consider them to be mentally ill in almost all circumstances. We can save the baby and restore its quality of life to be pain-free, fully-able and happy.

Does that change your view?

Why would that change my view?

I shouldn't presume to say, that's why I simply asked if it changed your view? I'd be interested to know the reason for your opinion either way.

Whether or not people wish to die or whether or not those people are subjectively considered mentally ill has no bearing on when people have rights. Also our ability to do something has no bearing on whether it violates rights, or whether the people involved have rights.

So it all looks totally irrelevant to me.

So the answer to "Does it change your mind?" is "It doesn't matter"?

 

[FoolKiller]

but children belong to the country presumably?

Not my child! She is no one's property. She is in my care and raised by me, but she is not property that belongs to anyone. It is the greatest thing that I am trying to instill in her. No people belong to the government. The government belongs to the people.

This is dangerously close to saying we could dispose of infants if both parents agree that it is hindering their quality of life.

We have a legal system in place to do just that, at least in my state. It is how my cousin got one of her three adopted children. At birth, the mother signed away her parental rights.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We have a legal system in place to do just that, at least in my state. It is how my cousin got one of her three adopted children. At birth, the mother signed away her parental rights.

You know we were talking about the baby being allowed to die

If your neighbour was neglecting a baby to the point where it was in constant pain and near death (as some people sadly do), are the state right to intervene and to remove the child to a place of safety?

 

[FoolKiller]

If your neighbour was neglecting a baby to the point where it was in constant pain and near death (as some people sadly do), are the state right to intervene and to remove the child to a place of safety?

That is a far different scenario from a sick child not getting treatment for religious reasons, and you know it. Withholding food and basic necessities without reason or cause or is the same as murder. But just like the child's parents, I can refuse medical treatment for any reason I wish. We did just that when my wife gave birth. We wanted a natural birth. A nurse got in trouble for not sticking to our birth plan, even after my wife had gone over 12 hours with her water broken. Should the nurse have called police and had us charged with child endangerment? The parents speak for the child on medical procedures.

Another anecdotal example, when I was 14 I was hit in the eye by a tennis racket. Blood everywhere, me screaming. My mom, the sole guardian after a divorce, wasn't home. My neighbor took me to the hospital. The ER doctors did nothing until they could get permission from my mother. I was soaked head to toe in my own blood and they did nothing because my medical decision making abilities belonged to my parents.

And yes, I know you we're talking about allowing the baby to die, but the simple fact is that we are allowed to abandon our children and it happens far more regularly than should be the case.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That is a far different scenario from a sick child not getting treatment for religious reasons, and you know it.

Not really, the parent's made a decision (for whatever reason) and the child will die as a result of it.

The religious parents (because they believe it to be right) withhold a basic necessity - in this case access to lifesaving medical care.

Should the state intervene in that?

 

[Danoff]

If your neighbour was neglecting a baby to the point where it was in constant pain and near death (as some people sadly do), are the state right to intervene and to remove the child to a place of safety?

Yes (and no, that's not inconsistent with any other position I've taken).

 

[KSaiyu]

And yet it's not the same thing. I aid parents can refuse certain medical technologies for their children, and we don't know that the child would do otherwise.

That's my point. The parent's don't know either, and in their case would be directly causing harm by denying treatment. Granted the aetiology is no fault of the parent's, but that's irrelevant.

We have a legal system in place to do just that, at least in my state. It is how my cousin got one of her three adopted children. At birth, the mother signed away her parental rights.

I should have clarified - I didn't mean adoption. Since one of the arguments was that abortion could be allowed up until birth what's to stop it being taken further. If the infant with limited rights in comparison to the parents is a nuisance to them why couldn't the parents 'abort' the child after birth. Or does the child get additional rights by virtue of being born, and if so to what extent. Enough so it can't be murdered by the parents but not enough to have life saving treatment, refused only because of its parents convictions?

 

[FoolKiller]

Not really, the parent's made a decision (for whatever reason) and the child will die as a result of it.

The religious parents (because they believe it to be right) withhold a basic necessity - in this case access to lifesaving medical care.

Should the state intervene in that?

My answer is in the parts of my post you didn't quote or respond to. The parents act as a medical surrogate, speaking on behalf of a person who cannot speak for themselves, and anyone can refuse a medical treatment.

 

[Danoff]

That's my point. The parent's don't know either, and in their case would be directly causing harm by denying treatment. Granted the aetiology is no fault of the parent's, but that's irrelevant.

The parents are the ones put in charge of their childs wishes and needs (who else could do better?). If the parents think the child should not have the procedure, and the child does not (cannot) object, then the child should not have the procedure. I should say that the parents also have obligations to basic medical care. If the child has a broken arm, it needs to be set and immobilized. If the child is cold, they need to be taken someplace warm. If the child is hungry, they need to be fed. But that bar needs to be the basics, we're not talking about blood transfusions or radiation therapy or CT scans. The line is "things parents can do themselves" rather than "things that can hypothetically be done by science given infinite resources".

 

[TenEightyOne]

The parents are the ones put in charge of their childs wishes and needs (who else could do better?). If the parents think the child should not have the procedure, and the child does not (cannot) object, then the child should not have the procedure. I should say that the parents also have obligations to basic medical care. If the child has a broken arm, it needs to be set and immobilized. If the child is cold, they need to be taken someplace warm. If the child is hungry, they need to be fed. But that bar needs to be the basics, we're not talking about blood transfusions or radiation therapy or CT scans. The line is "things parents can do themselves" rather than "things that can hypothetically be done by science given infinite resources".

Defirinitely, I'd say that we'd normally expect that an adequate parent should do those things. If they didn't do those things then we'd probably say they were neglectful.

The case I presented goes way beyond that though; the parents are in no position to administer the life-saving care that their child requires, only a medical professional is. Should there be an intervention to save the child against the parents' wishes?

 

[Danoff]

The case I presented goes way beyond that though; the parents are in no position to administer the life-saving care that their child requires, only a medical professional is. Should there be an intervention to save the child against the parents' wishes?

No, the parents are the child's guardians and voice the child's wishes for the child.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No, the parents are the child's guardians and voice the child's wishes for the child.

If they smother the child to death in order to end its pain then they are almost certainly fulfilling the child's immediate wish. Are they correct in doing that, and does the act differ from simply allowing the child to die by withholding care?

 

[Danoff]

If they smother the child to death in order to end its pain then they are almost certainly fulfilling the child's immediate wish. Are they correct in doing that, and does the act differ from simply allowing the child to die by withholding care?

Yes that act differs from choosing not to have a medical procedure performed on your child. One is action, the other is inaction (and yes it matters, and no inaction is not always ok either).

 

[KSaiyu]

I wonder, is Kermit Gosnell a product of indifference, regulation ineptitude or willful ignorance. No doubt a serial killer who targeted neo-natal units would have a greater chance of more widespread media coverage, but what allowed him to get away with it for so long? In this country you can barely make it through the front door of a maternity wing without identification yet something like this happened for over a decade (albeit in America). Here Harold Shipman is probably one of the most well known (ex) medical professionals but from my understanding Gosnell isn't nearly as infamous over there.

 

[Danoff]

I wonder, is Kermit Gosnell a product of indifference, regulation ineptitude or willful ignorance.

He's a product of black market demand created by abortion laws. Those abortions are done correctly, and accidental deaths or botched procedures are drastically reduced if they aren't illegal. Anytime you make something illegal that people want, it gets done by someone shady, and often badly.

 

[KSaiyu]

He's a product of black market demand created by abortion laws. Those abortions are done correctly, and accidental deaths or botched procedures are drastically reduced if they aren't illegal. Anytime you make something illegal that people want, it gets done by someone shady, and often badly.

And that's my only reserve about my position on abortion. I think before we make meaningful headway on abortion, contraception issues have to addressed. With half of pregnancies in the US still unintended surely this would be something both sides can agree to focus on.

 

[Danoff]

And that's my only reserve about my position on abortion. I think before we make meaningful headway on abortion, contraception issues have to addressed. With half of pregnancies in the US still unintended surely this would be something both sides can agree to focus on.

Contraception is a wonderful thing. I don't think people thank their lucky stars enough that they live in a time where contraception exists. Think about all of the sex you can have because of contraception! Of course for me being infertile I could anyway.

But contraception is kindof a separate topic from abortion. Yea they're linked for sure, but abortion is its own philosophical minefield.

 

[KSaiyu]

Separate, but pertinent to the discussion. Treating pregnancy as a "pathology", with "treatment" provided by the clinics means it could be a central theme. With cancer we talk about smoking; liver disease we debate on alcohol. No-one is saying we deny these people treatments, but we prioritise the people (generally) who need a liver transplant because of causes unrelated to alcohol because everyone has the information available to them to know the harm they could sustain through drinking.

By having abortion so free and easy and glossing over the truths of the "treatment", we're doing more harm than good.

 

[Danoff]

Separate, but pertinent to the discussion. Treating pregnancy as a "pathology", with "treatment" provided by the clinics means it could be a central theme. With cancer we talk about smoking; liver disease we debate on alcohol. No-one is saying we deny these people treatments, but we prioritise the people (generally) who need a liver transplant because of causes unrelated to alcohol because everyone has the information available to them to know the harm they could sustain through drinking.

By having abortion so free and easy and glossing over the truths of the "treatment", we're doing more harm than good.

I don't think that discussing abortion means we're glossing over contraception. Abortions are not easy. They're not fun, they're not free, they're not convenient, and they're not clean. The people that get them can't possibly come away thinking that taking a pill is a worse way to go.

 

[KSaiyu]

I don't think that discussing abortion means we're glossing over contraception. Abortions are not easy. They're not fun, they're not free, they're not convenient, and they're not clean. The people that get them can't possibly come away thinking that taking a pill is a worse way to go.

Glossing over abortion. Services call it "treatment" as if it's dialysis or chemotherapy. Patients are shielded from the gravity of their decision so much that it leads to around 40% of abortions being repeat abortions, with some having 5 or more. Such indifference to life is a consequence of mollycoddling women and girls that there is no consequence.

My suggestion was if you want to treat it like a disease, put more effort into prevention.