DescentBB

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520690,00.html

where's the outcry from the pro choice left. the kid doesnt want the chemo, so why are we forcing him. is it not HIS body??

Is it not curious, we cannot spank children anymore to cure a behavioral problem as it is painful and deemed abusive. On the other hand, we have to cause pain and misery to children when it is deemed curative and a medical necessity. Perhaps the mother is confused as to how a parent should be handling this.

woodchip wrote:Perhaps the mother is confused as to how a parent should be handling this.

x2. Ignorance is bliss..

Someone who is pro-choice will say that they have a choice because getting an abortion doesn't harm any person, arguing that fetuses before a certain point do not have the property of personhood or any other properties of significant ethical value, so no harm done. But, in this case, not getting chemotherapy is harming a person, the minor refusing chemotherapy, hence why this minor doesn't have a choice.

I have to drive to work 2 hours earlier just to not be stuck in traffic on a secret rout I found to work... We have enough people! Abort all babies!

Jeff250 wrote:Someone who is pro-choice will say that they have a choice because getting an abortion doesn't harm any person, arguing that fetuses before a certain point do not have the property of personhood or any other properties of significant ethical value, so no harm done. But, in this case, not getting chemotherapy is harming a person, the minor refusing chemotherapy, hence why this minor doesn't have a choice.

NO someone who is pro-choice says its my body I can do what I want with it. which is exactly what this Kid is doing. he is saying it's his body he can do what he wants with it.

Side note I happen to disagree with the parents on this. I am just pointing out the inconsistencies of our society

Cuda wrote:NO someone who is pro-choice says its my body I can do what I want with it.

Exactly. When they say that it is my body, then they are precluding it being two people's bodies--they are precluding there being another person's body in the equation. Pro-choice people think that there is no person being harmed, since there is no other person, whereas in this chemotherapy case it is clear to just about everyone that there is a person who will get harmed.

Pro-choice people do *not* think the following: that there is a second person being harmed during an abortion but that choice is just such a wonderful thing in and of itself that we should ignore that person's harm so that someone can have some choice. That is not their argument. But that's what you would have to show is their argument for there to be any inconsistency here. You are shortchanging the pro-choice position.

Jeff250 wrote:When they say that it is my body, then they are precluding it being two people's bodies-

Frequently, but not always. I HAVE read and listened to pro-choice arguments that stated quite clearly that it did not matter whether the fetus was a person or not. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Jar ... f_Abortion

It is a scary world we live in when the state insist that it knows what is medically best for you, and that it will force you to receive treatment whether you want to or not. Even for minors. A hundred years ago the state would have been forcing children to be bled. But even supposing the state is RIGHT, it's still a terrifying thing.

The state has an obligation to protect minors, but when they are clearly old enough to understand the nature of the choice, they should be allowed some say before you force medical treatment on them. Rational adults frequently decide that death is preferable to chemotherapy. (I disagree, but that is beside the point)

the article wrote:He also wrote that Daniel, who has a learning disability and cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn't believe he was ill.

and there is any discussion about whether the court's order is justified?

Pandora wrote:

the article wrote:He also wrote that Daniel, who has a learning disability and cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn't believe he was ill.

and there is any discussion about whether the court's order is justified?

so if the courts ordered an abortion on a learning disabled young woman against her parents wishes, would that be justified??

depends on the situation. On whether the pregnancy is life threatening, on whether she understands what will happen to her, and so on...

so back to my initial question, do you think that would make ANY difference at all to the Pro-Choice people??




again I want to reiterate. I agree with the courts decision, its the Hypocrocy that I do not agree with.

Kilarin wrote:I HAVE read and listened to pro-choice arguments that stated quite clearly that it did not matter whether the fetus was a person or not.

True, and I've heard utilitarian arguments that argue in a similar direction. But people who would espouse those arguments are in the minority, and I think you'll find that few if any of the pro-choicers on this board embrace them. And, in any case, none of even those arguments argue what Cuda has to show that they argue to have a point--that abortion is good because choice is just such a wonderful thing in and of itself that it trumps all other matters. The argument you linked argues that abortion is closer to not saving a drowning person than actually drowning a person. A utilitarian would argue that the ends justify the means, e.g. it's better to have one happy person than two unhappy people. But none of even these arguments argue that getting to choose things is just so cool that we should choose to perform abortions all day long, which is what Cuda would have to show for him to have a point, yet he hasn't done this yet.

CUDA wrote:NO someone who is pro-choice says its my body I can do what I want with it.

Well, clearly this isn't true for any male who is pro-choice. You are putting pro-choice people into too small of a box.

My view is closer to the contrapositive of what you wrote, "I don't have a right to tell her what she can do with it, since it is not my body."

Alot of pro-choice people would not do it themselves. In fact, many of us still consider it to be a poor choice.

Glad to see Goob, you edited out your last 2 sentences.

Hmm take a fetus by its legs with a large pair of tweezers, spin it around and snatch his legs and body out up to the point that the head is still buried (so we can technically say it hasn't been born although at least 80% of its body is), take a pair of scissors and thrust it into its spinal cord so we can harvest it's organs. Is this really a pro-choice issue? Some things should just be considered wrong.

woodchip wrote:Glad to see Goob, you edited out your last 2 sentences.

I'm always fine if you quote, I just didnt like how it was phrased. And was pretty sure if someone was going to respond, that was the point they would pick.

It was along the lines of I agree that pro-choice is a bad term. Pro-the right to make the-choice would be better.

I still agree with that.

flip wrote:Hmm take a fetus by its legs with a large pair of tweezers, spin it around and snatch his legs and body out up to the point that the head is still buried (so we can technically say it hasn't been born although at least 80% of its body is), take a pair of scissors and thrust it into its spinal cord so we can harvest it's organs. Is this really a pro-choice issue? Some things should just be considered wrong.

I agree, as is calling a woman who just had sex and takes the \\textit{morning-after} pill a murderer.

Yeah I got nothing against the morning after pill. Just being a realist. That's my whole beef with abortion really. People go and get knocked up being irresponsible, then kill their own seed. The morning after pill to me is no different than a condom or regular birth control. If you don't want kids, take precautions. If your too damn dumb to look that far ahead, then a couple of kids is just what you need to give you some foresight.

Gooberman wrote:

CUDA wrote:NO someone who is pro-choice says its my body I can do what I want with it.

You are putting pro-choice people into too small of a box.

I don't agree. Cuda sicintly stated the quinicential axiom of the pro-choice movement.

"My body, My choice".

He is infuring that if you really MEANT that it would apply to ALL arenas of choice, not just the topic of abortion. .. which is what "they" are really doing

*by "they", I refer to those who comprise the hard core political machine that lobbies and blogs; not the average individual that considers themselves "pro-choice".

As I read it, Cuda's statement is an absolute that refers to an absolute that is used in a "fuzzy" manner.

Jeff250 wrote:But people who would espouse those arguments are in the minority

Yes, they are in the minority. Not as small of a minority as I would like, but it certainly isn't the majority point of view.

Society is in a bind here. Unless you can prove a risk to others, such as infectious disease, forcing treatment on someone against their will should certainly be wrong. When the subject is a minor, the state must balance this against it's obligation to protect those below the age of responsibility. This case is compounded by the minor being learning disabled.

It's not an easy case. I'm still afraid the court has made the wrong decision. Forcing medical treatment on someone who does not want it is... DANGEROUS.

Duper wrote:"My body, My choice".

He is infuring that if you really MEANT that it would apply to ALL arenas of choice, not just the topic of abortion. .. which is what "they" are really doing

But it does, of course, apply to all arenas of choice. However, the choice has to be INFORMED, and the person in question must be able to make this choice. What we are talking about here is the case of a minor, with learning disabilities, who is clearly indoctrinated by his parents and has been misinformed about the dangers of both his illness and the treatment.

Let me put it this way. If the person in question were an adult, and the court would still make the same decision, then pro-choicers would (need to) speak up.

You know, this really has me torn... and I think is a prime example of some of my beliefs concerning the separation of church and state.

On the one hand, there are lots of negligent and abusive parents out there that really hurt their children. It's a good thing for the state to protect these children.

On the other hand, I have a hard time classifying the use of non-standard remedies as \"neglect\" or \"abuse\"- especially when the apparent intentions of the parents are good.

If the parent's opinions weren't quite so crazy, I'd feel pretty strongly about it not being the state's business.

It raises a couple of questions:
1. When can a treatment be considered reliable & proven enough to be worthy of a Judge's mandate?
2. When can beliefs be considered dangerous enough that it justifies a judge stepping in?

Finally, I see it illustrating my thoughts about the idea of separation of church and state. Specifically, I think it's a myth. The state rules & punishes on actions taken for religious reasons all the time. Any person who is truly committed to their beliefs will live them out every minute of the day. While it's a nice idea that the state can't raid your church service, belief systems run much deeper than Sunday mornings.

I think the point of the constitution was that you can believe whatever you want, peaceably meet and talk about it, and even peaceably act it out- but as soon as your actions start straying too far from the norm, and it starts affecting others (including minors in your care), then the state can step in to validate or invalidate the actions that you're taking as a result of your belief system. As a result, the state passes judgment on world view (read: religiously) driven actions all of the time. I guess I'm saying that I see \"separation of church and state\" as a poor description of the actual relationship between the government and people's belief systems.

Ya'll need to read up on the story a little better. The family was horribly misquoted.

Pan i can agree with much of that. (on lunch now, I'll go into specifics later) But I really see Cuda's first statement as a critique's of an over arching principle and how it's used used by power groups and not so much how it applies to the individual (which you addressed) .. but Cuda would have to confirm that.

(3 spelling errors. Thank goodness for FF spell check. )

I am definiatelly NOT talking about individuals, because each case is special. but as I said earlier, if this was a young woman that the court had mandated that she abort a child against her and the Mothers wishes, you could be damn sure that the pro-choice movement would be all over this. I just think its hypocritical.

No, it's not hypocritical. You're intentionally over-analyzing the language of four-word slogans and refusing to analyze what the slogans actually represent. \"My body, my choice\" doesn't mean that pro-choicers think that anyone can always do whatever they want with their body no matter what the surrounding circumstances are. They just think that it is a good general rule of thumb. With abortion, the rule of thumb applies because abortion isn't harming anyone (recall when they think life begins), but with a minor refusing chemotherapy, that rule of thumb is trumped by the rule of thumb that unnecessary death of people is bad. There is no inconsistency.

Jeff250 wrote: There is no inconsistency.

Really!!!!! what about the right to die laws in many states

\"Right to die\" laws have nothing to do with being pro-choice or pro-life. They're completely independent issues. I want to make sure that we are clear on that before I say anything about it.

With that caveat out of the way, the minor here doesn't actually want to die. He's just going about trying to live in a foolish way. So it's not clear to me that this is a right to die case. Even if it were, a right-to-die advocate may be in favor of adults choosing to die but still not think that children are old enough to make that decision themselves. So it could be perfectly consistent for a right-to-die advocate to not support the minor's refusal to get chemotherapy.

Jeff250 wrote:Even if it were, a right-to-die advocate may be in favor of adults choosing to die but still not think that children are old enough to make that decision themselves. So it could be perfectly consistent for a right-to-die advocate to not support the minor's refusal to get chemotherapy.

I agree with you. I think that from a legal standpoint, the child's opinion on the matter is irrelevant. This is really a question of authority and/or fitness of the parents to act in the child's best interest, from a legal standpoint.

Jeff250 wrote:Someone who is pro-choice will say that they have a choice because getting an abortion doesn't harm any person, arguing that fetuses before a certain point do not have the property of personhood or any other properties of significant ethical value, so no harm done.

It's a good thing no one here is that stupid.

CUDA wrote:if this was a young woman that the court had mandated that she abort a child against her and the Mothers wishes, you could be damn sure that the pro-choice movement would be all over this.

Are you sure? I thought the "choice" was to snuff the unborn life? Somehow I have a hard time picturing that group rallying in support of life against abortion. That I'd have to see.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It's a good thing no one here is that stupid.

Well, my views are complicated, and, as you can see from this thread (and your own comments), claiming to be "pro-choice" tends to pigeonhole oneself. But I don't see any reason for personhood to begin at conception, which I believe is sufficient for my view to be incompatible with yours.

I’m good with that…as long as you admit you are placing “personhood” at an arbitrary position.

I mean since it’s impossible to make that determination, it might as well be at the start…as well as anyway along the line….say…age 21...

(oops sorry, that’s off topic aint it)

Depends if you are talking ethically or legally. By their nature, laws will describe arbitrary points like that, such as \"amounts of $1,000 or more,\" \"during the first trimester,\" \"no more than 75 MPH,\" and so on. The law tries to give a best fit of an ethical reality, but the law doesn't always fit perfectly with the nuances of an individual situation. This is more of a problem with law itself than anything.

Ethically, the point at which a person fully develops personhood would be slightly different for different people. I don't know when exactly either. But I don't see any of the qualities of personhood observable at the moment of conception, nor do I see any other reason why we should treat the initial product of conception as a person.

I am confident that we don't have to treat personhood like an on-off switch, something you either have completely or you have none at all. Hurting a chimpanzee is different than stepping on an ant. Why? Because chimpanzees, while we can't consider people, have some of the qualities of personhood that require us to have special ethical obligations to them. Ants, on the other hand, don't appear to have any qualities of personhood, so we don't appear to have any ethical obligation to treat ants nicely.

So if we consider personhood as something that can exist in fractions and develop instead of just turning on all of a sudden, then perhaps the ethical reality of abortion is something like this: around the first trimester, it doesn't matter; around the second trimester, you have to have a pretty good reason; around the third trimester, only to save the mother's life. Again, as long as we are talking ethically, this will vary slightly depending on the individual, and the boundaries won't be discrete.

I don't recall the law exactly, but I think that the current law approximates something close to what I laid out in the previous paragraph. I'm not necessarily endorsing what I laid out in the last paragraph as the correct way either, but I think that something like that is the right approach.

I don't know if thinking of personhood as something that develops gradually instead of something that just magically turns on (if you don't already think of it this way) eases your qualms of there being some point at which personhood is fully present, but when I started thinking about it this way, it eased mine.

Actually I was thinking in terms of principal, not legal or ethical. I’m a firm believer that you first have to know what you are dealing with before you apply the moral or legal aspects.

But I do advocate the three trimester rule (in a slightly modified version) as a valid compromise in this issue. But I don’t wish to start that debate, I just wanted to make my initial point.