Lusankya wrote:You don't think she'd be willing to sacrifice her life for her child's at any other time?
I'm thinking if this is a long term thing, she'd be able to compute this contingency and give such an answer before such contingencies occur.
It's a person. Don't you get that??????
I know it is, but now, here's another fundamental problem with pro-choice. With pro-Life, the definition of when a embryo becomes a "person" is relatively easy - somewhere around contraception, pretty much the earliest possible point. With pro-Choice, however, you have to draw a relatively arbitrary line. With each line, you cut off some vital physical and mental developments before that line as "not yet representative" of a person. And worse, in
pure principle at least, since the line is relatively arbitrary in placement, it is theoretically justifiable to put it
after birth. It may sound wierd to extend the "pro-Choice period" to after birth, but the same fundamental discriminator still applies - "X and X that's in a Person has not been Completed, so it is Not a Person Yet." Yes, we would have to define it as a Person before it reaches legal adulthood, and the practical number of people supporting pro-Choice tails off to almost nothing after about 28 weeks (when the baby can be taken out with a fair chance of survival), in pure principle this is so.
Ah, honestly, just thinking about this makes me rethink my entire pro-Choice stance.
In any case, humans operate under various arcane rules of arbitrariness. Tell me, what
objectively differentiates a person aged 17 years 364 days and one that's a perfect 18? Not anything significant. Yet the latter is suddenly liberated.
Like when????
If you ask me, like right now.
Until I'm in the situation, they are still hypothetical genes.
OK...
It's one thing to irrationally put your own life at risk, and another to irrationally put another's life at risk. Surely you understand that. WANTING ONE'S BABY TO LIVE IS NOT IRRATIONAL!!!
But in both cases, one can argue it is not your decision to make. Parents are supposed to have the right to make decisions for their kids, right?
I agreed that the Fundamental Idea of Wanting One's Baby to Live is not an Irrational Position. It is because there is no clear right answer in this case that it can be a dilemma.
You don't respect women very much, do you?
I don't think I have any particular disrespect for women. I just have a fear of powerful Instincts, and AFAIK Maternal Instinct is a powerful one indeed. Instincts can overwhelm any Reason, and
that is what I fear may push you into making a decision you'd regret.
Choice does not depend on the state of mind of the person who is making the choice. Choice implies that the person chooses one of two or more options. And when someone has the right to make the choice, you have NO RIGHT to take that choice away from them, based on your own ideas.
But if the person's not in her right mind when making the choice, is it still the person making the choice?
I'll go one up on you. I'll call you an arrogant dick-for-brains. It's their decision, no matter how emotionally they make it. Whether they regret it or not is none of your business. Yes they may regret it, but they may not. It's their choice and they will have to live with it. People don't need to go around living with your choices.
In this case, if I accept the mother's choice of prioritization, if it does deteoriate into a one-or-the-other scenario, at least she won't have to live with her choice. Just that her husband and baby will have to live with it.
Whether or not her baby survives is up to her, still. If both die, then it's her choice. If she wants the baby to survive, then that's also her choice. It's not yours.
Honestly, I really am beginning to wonder who's sicker. Me, who is at least trying to achieve the best overall solution, or You, who is so "non-interventionist" and pro-Choice you'd let a mother carry her embryo (a Person if you are pro-Life) on a direct trip to Oblivion (or Hell, if you have a religion) for nothing more than a belief. I really fail to see how both mother and baby being lost can be the "best possible solution".
Ok. So because some people are crappy parents I have to ba a crappy parent too? Is that how it works?
I don't think they are
crappy. Just that they've lost hope. It happens.
I have every intention of being just such a parent, even if you don't.
It is really cute how you can say you can't decide for certain whether you will vote to keep the baby or not in the #2 scenario, then say with such certainty that you have every intention of being a good parent. Honestly, the number of unplannable contingencies in good parenting of even a normal child is far greater than the number of contingencies involved in these scenarios.
I'm not a parent, but from what I've observed, parenting is something" where you can lay out a very general plan, but everything Day to Day (which decides a lot of your "Good/Bad Parent Points") will often be by the Seat of the Pants. That is, totally unplannable. That's assuming your General Plan doesn't get smashed, such as because you are the breadwinner and yet you got fired.
It's not as easy as not being diabetic, but it's not exactly what I'd call inimical to having a good life.
Still, I don't want my child to grow to sapience and take this.
The OP stated a situation where you don't have a day to mull over things. In that case, you should respect the wishes of the woman in regards to her own body.
I'm actually answering to someone's Pro-Choice thing. I'm pointing out here I'd make every attempt to ensure the Woman can make her own
Rational choice.
So if she decided that she wanted to survive at the expense of the baby, you'd save the baby because her decision was made irrationally and under "sane" circumstances she'd make the other choice?
Actually, no. The entire point of this passage is to note that my grading of her competence has nothing to do with whether she said a position agreeing or disagreeing with mine. It has to do with estimating her level of mental turmoil.
I know I'm supporting a very controversial position, but at least don't straw.
Why is the Self-Preservation instinct higher than the Maternal Instinct? You seem to think that self-preservation is rational, but now you're admitting that it's one of the instincts that you abhor so much.
Self-preservation is one of the instincts. I believe with most mothers, it will generally be a weaker instinct than the Maternal Instinct.
I don't abhor instincts. They are often very useful. Like that time when I touched a Hot Cup - it was the only thing that kept a First Degree burn from being 2nd Degree. I'm sure I kept mentioning in this thread also about how they are
generally useful.
However, self preservation is also a rationale, as I've explained above.
To hell it is.
It already happened to you? I have no doubt maternal instinct could be summoned anytime your kid is in danger, but given some time, you would be able to get your mind working rationally again.
She's prioritising things differently from you. That doesn't mean she's lacking in mental capacity. And morally it's not like the crying girl. She's had nine months (or more) to accustom herself to the idea of motherhood - much more than the couple of months or few weeks (or even few minutes) that the crying girl has had. Not to mention that in Stofsk's case you're killing the baby without her permission.
I "what"?
Anyway. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Let's try it one more time:
1) There is nothing fundamentally wrong with her prioritization. I don't believe it fits with Utilitarianism, but Utilitarianism is hardly the only moral principle in the world.
2) Therefore, merely choosing such does not mean she's "lacking in mental capacity".
3) My concern is that with the stress of the situation, her decision, either way, would be one that had not considered her full "soul depth", so to speak. It is that stress that reduces her mental capacity, not her position.
4) I think it very likely said turmoil would be high enough to render her capacity effectively incompetent.
5) Therefore, implied consent could apply. I'd
try to do the right thing.
So you'd defy her wishes IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT SHE'D HATE YOU FOR IT FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE. In other words, you don't care how it affects her, you just want to force your position onto everyone else. Here's a newsflash for you: If she's going to hate you for the rest of your life because of it, then DON'T DO IT BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY WRONG.
Let me put this in perspective. I'm going to defy someone's will today no matter what I do. He or she is going to hate me for the rest of their life for what I did. By your logic, both moves are probably wrong.
Life is not always easy, as you said. Sometimes, even the best possible decision would produce widespread and horrible resentment. In that case, all you can do, IMO, is to try and do the right decision, and at least settle your conscience as much as possible that you've done so.
It doesn't need to come on in full force every day because every day doesn't involve a life or death decision. And while the surge of emotion is short(often as short as the crisis), the consequences of the actions are long-term, and decisions made during this time are made in consideration of the child's future wellbeing.
Which is what I said. The consequences are long term, but the full force effect that blinds everything is short.
Technically speaking the doctors only have to provide you with the means to your own salvation. It's your choice whether you take advantage of them or not.
Again with that non-interventionary position. Here's
my wish for now. If this ever really happens to me, I hope the doctor would ignore my screams of No Needles and save me.
It's not natural regret. It's being angry that you disobeyed her wishes
Nevertheless, the truth is that in such difficult choices like this, no matter which choice you ultimately make, the other side will look a
lot better as soon as you commit to one (whether it really is that good or not).
One of them has to die. The mother has stated that she considers the baby's life to be paramount. You're not killing the mother if you honestly can't save her, but you are killing the baby in defiance of the mother's wishes if she has already stated that she wants you to put the baby first. Consider it to be the same as any other person refusing treatment, with the notable exception being that their reason for refusing treatment is so that another life can be saved.
So whether I'm killing depends on what the mother says? In a time of anguish? Hmm...
I hardly see how this is relevant. Basic desires (such as whether or not you're willing to sacrifice your life for your child's) aren't so fickle. I want my baby to survive when everything's going ok. WHen the shit hits the fan, I still want my baby to survive. I may be more emotional, but guess what! The emotions don't change how I feel about the baby's survival. Lots of things might affect my driving competence, but that doesn't mean that I'm incapable of making rational decisions.
I never said it must. Just that there is too high a chance. If you are
this determined, it shouldn't be a great chore to convince me this was your decision all along, which is what I'm concerned about. If you don't have a note like I suggested last page, I recommend a brave, determined smile and a calm voice stating what you want.
The baby won't get over death very easily either,
Stop pointing out the obvious. Note phrases like "balance the equation out any"
and the mother's offered to be in this (dead) position - a luxury the baby doesn't have. So you want to save the person who's willing to die, and you want to lkill the person who has stated no such sentiment.
Which is why if she can convince me it was her decision all along, I'd go with it. See P.1. If you are calm and rational, I'd let you sacrifice your life for an ant. Your life's value can be set by yourself, but I don't want to ingest a value that came out due to anything other than your true desires. Especially with so much as stake.
No, you're not weak principled. I'd say unprincipled is more the ticket. You're willing to go against the wishes of a woman, knowing that she will hate you for your actions for the rest of her life, and then you have the gall to say that you know her desires better than she does, despite the fact that you're blatantly ignoring them.
I'm going to make
someone hate me for the rest of their life no matter what I do. I don't know if I know her desires better than she does even in that state. Normally I definitely wouldn't. I just want to be sure I'm executing her true desires, not the ones in a "Intoxicated" state, except the reason for intoxication is not alcohol, but severe emotion.
-- Asuka
Egads! I'd say something about that, but ... 
Well...that doesn't make sense.
