Abortion = Kindness?

[lkline300]

LOL.. Wayne,. not sure if your being sarcastic or not , either way it reinforces my philosophy.

 

Selfish people cannot form a perfect union. People have to pull all the weight they can & those that don't need to be shown the benefits of doing so.

 

We can't leave anyone behind though or we will never get to where we want to be.

 

Everyone has someone in their house that doesn't do as much as the rest. Do we throw them out. Not look out for them anymore?

 

Their family.

[+RevThad]

 

 

Everyone has someone in their house that doesn't do as much as the rest. Do we throw them out. Not look out for them anymore?

 

Their family.

I think he was being sarcastic, and pointing out the insanity of the current and proposed systems.

 

That being said.... for those that don't pull their own weight in my house, I just smother them with a pillow, there is no reason I should suffer. Think of the savings on food and clothing...

[lkline300]

I think he was being sarcastic, and pointing out the insanity of the current and proposed systems.

 

That being said.... for those that don't pull their own weight in my house, I just smother them with a pillow, there is no reason I should suffer. Think of the savings on food and clothing...

 

LOL....................................

[greenbuddha]

No forum I have ever been on is limited to one subject. They all have areas in the forum where members are allowed to talk about anything whether it relates to the forums topic. This is the "Lets Get Personal" Forum and this forum is where members can talk about anything they want. We do not censor this forum that is why there is a warning under the title. I understand that this is one of those topics that get people upset. There are strong feelings on both sides of this topic and I expect this one to get heated at some point. We as mods won't take any action unless this thread turns ugly and everyone starts calling each other names or gives out a threat. Even though this is an uncensored thread we will not allow members to break the forums rules.

 

Totally agree.

 

If 'I' am going to put the idea out there... I should be ready to at least listen to opposing views.

 

As long as the other 'views' are presented in a civilized and rational manner I should have no problem with those views.

 

If I 'berate' and 'belittle' others because they happen not to like my ideas then I should take a closer look at 'WHY' I feel the need to react that way.

 

I'll get off my 'soap box' now and get ready to dodge those rotten tomatoes and cabbages.

 

Have fun folks. (Darn I don't think I'll be able to get that stain out.)

[Rashore]

Wow, interesting OP... I gotta say, where it may be more humane to abort a severely deformed fetus rather than try to make it have an effed up life... the smother with a pillow statement was a bit blunt.

[thanks2]

Wow, interesting OP... I gotta say, where it may be more humane to abort a severely deformed fetus rather than try to make it have an effed up life... the smother with a pillow statement was a bit blunt.

Many imperfect people live very happy lives. I do not believe we should say just because you are not the way the rest of us are you should not live. Many of us here are "deformed" in one way or another, but most of us enjoy our limited lives. I think the issue is that most parents do not want to raise a special needs child.

[+RevThad]

Many imperfect people live very happy lives. I do not believe we should say just because you are not the way the rest of us are you should not live. Many of us here are "deformed" in one way or another, but most of us enjoy our limited lives. I think the issue is that most parents do not want to raise a special needs child.

You are to report to my business tomorrow for proper termination, somebody messed up during the screening process.

 

Oh wait, this isn't Sparta.

 

There are many folks that are so self absorbed that they cannot handle the concept of treating a special needs child, much less the thought of possibly having to care for them for the rest of their lives. Hell, many folks don't even take care of their healthy children these days because they are too self absorbed.

 

Somebody once said that we should require people to be licensed before they have children, we require them for people to get cats and dogs, we require them for getting married.....

 

Perhaps some wisdom can be found in there, someplace...

[Ionic7]

Here is some light reading for you, I might have found you a friend.

 

From The Lancet, Volume 373, Issue 9661, Pages 423 - 431, 31 January 2009, Emanuel writes:

The complete lives system

 

Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. As such, it prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of distributive justice: “individual human lives, rather than individual experiences, [are] the units over which any distributive principle should operate.” Although there are important differences between these thinkers, they share a core commitment to consider entire lives rather than events or episodes, which is also the defining feature of the complete lives system.

 

Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfilment requires a complete life. As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, “It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when an adolescent does”; this argument is supported by empirical surveys. Importantly, the prioritisation of adolescents and young adults considers the social and personal investment that people are morally entitled to have received at a particular age, rather than accepting the results of an unjust status quo. Consequently, poor adolescents should be treated the same as wealthy ones, even though they may have received less investment owing to social injustice.

 

The complete lives system also considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable. Some small benefits, such as a few weeks of life, might also be intrinsically insignificant when compared with large benefits.

 

Saving the most lives is also included in this system because enabling more people to live complete lives is better than enabling fewer. In a public health emergency, instrumental value could also be included to enable more people to live complete lives. Lotteries could be used when making choices between roughly equal recipients, and also potentially to ensure that no individual—irrespective of age or prognosis—is seen as beyond saving. Thus, the complete lives system is complete in another way: it incorporates each morally relevant simple principle.

 

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated. It therefore superficially resembles the proposal made by DALY advocates; however, the complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value. Additionally, the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them. Conversely, DALY allocation treats life-years given to elderly or disabled people as objectively less valuable.

 

Finally, the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients' health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates.

 

Objections

We consider several important objections to the complete lives system.

The complete lives system discriminates against older people. Age-based allocation is ageism. Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.

 

Age, like income, is a “non-medical criterion” inappropriate for allocation of medical resources. In contrast to income, a complete life is a health outcome. Long-term survival and life expectancy at birth are key health-care outcome variables. Delaying the age at onset of a disease is desirable.

 

The complete lives system is insensitive to international differences in typical lifespan. Although broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over the very elderly people, implementation can reasonably differ between, even within, nation-states. Some people believe that a complete life is a universal limit founded in natural human capacities, which everyone should accept even without scarcity. By contrast, the complete lives system requires only that citizens see a complete life, however defined, as an important good, and accept that fairness gives those short of a complete life stronger claims to scarce life-saving resources.

 

Principles must be ordered lexically: less important principles should come into play only when more important ones are fulfilled. Rawls himself agreed that lexical priority was inappropriate when distributing specific resources in society, though appropriate for ordering the principles of basic social justice that shape the distribution of basic rights, opportunities, and income.1 As an alternative, balancing priority to the worst-off against maximising benefits has won wide support in discussions of allocative local justice. As Amartya Sen argues, justice “does not specify how much more is to be given to the deprived person, but merely that he should receive more”.

 

Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must first reduce waste and increase spending. The complete lives system explicitly rejects waste and corruption, such as multiple listing for transplantation. Although it may be applicable more generally, the complete lives system has been developed to justly allocate persistently scarce life-saving interventions. Hearts for transplant and influenza vaccines, unlike money, cannot be replaced or diverted to non-health goals; denying a heart to one person makes it available to another. Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create “classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on”, but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.

 

Legitimacy

As well as recognising morally relevant values, an allocation system must be legitimate. Legitimacy requires that people see the allocation system as just and accept actual allocations as fair. Consequently, allocation systems must be publicly understandable, accessible, and subject to public discussion and revision. They must also resist corruption, since easy corruptibility undermines the public trust on which legitimacy depends. Some systems, like the UNOS points systems or QALY systems, may fail this test, because they are difficult to understand, easily corrupted, or closed to public revision. Systems that intentionally conceal their allocative principles to avoid public complaints might also fail the test.

 

Although procedural fairness is necessary for legitimacy, it is unable to ensure the justice of allocation decisions on its own. Although fair procedures are important, substantive, morally relevant values and principles are indispensable for just allocation.

 

Conclusion

Ultimately, none of the eight simple principles recognise all morally relevant values, and some recognise irrelevant values. QALY and DALY multiprinciple systems neglect the importance of fair distribution. UNOS points systems attempt to address distributive justice, but recognise morally irrelevant values and are vulnerable to corruption. By contrast, the complete lives system combines four morally relevant principles: youngest-first, prognosis, lottery, and saving the most lives. In pandemic situations, it also allocates scarce interventions to people instrumental in realising these four principles. Importantly, it is not an algorithm, but a framework that expresses widely affirmed values: priority to the worst-off, maximising benefits, and treating people equally. To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multiprinciple framework rather than relying on simple principles or retreating to the status quo.

Age-based priority for receiving scarce medical interventions under the complete lives system

 

 

Please also read this Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. It is also by Mr. Emanuel with help of a couple others. Got you thinking yet?

 

 

 

Ok that's alot to read and I am fairly certain its not going to change my views on people aborting something they don't want, if you really want you can summarize or tell me the point

[Ionic7]

The value of life to society is the cost of arms, ammunition, and knowing one is on the right side of one's god. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

that would be the value of life to religion, not all society is based on religion and war.

[+RevThad]

that would be the value of life to religion, not all society is based on religion and war.

One could define secularism as a religion, hell even the SCOTUS found that atheism is a religion...

[Ionic7]

One could define secularism as a religion, hell even the SCOTUS found that atheism is a religion...

 

Yea, per the definition of Religion, anything about the origin of the universe really qualifies as religion, personally I do not agree with that, it takes away from the people who are religious, let them have their word and let us have our own then we can all get along, who cares what god you go to when you die or who you don't go to. Be a good person, it is something all religions can agree on.

[MLM]

Ok that's alot to read and I am fairly certain its not going to change my views on people aborting something they don't want, if you really want you can summarize or tell me the point

 

I included that light reading as examples of their compassion.

[lkline300]

I kind of think of religion as a group dynamic. It has little to do with ones spirituality.

 

Religion divides people. What god would want that ?

 

The answer is simple in my eyes. God by what ever name is a father. And what a father wants most is for all his children to get along.

 

That is the test.

 

The reward is heaven on earth.

[drcannapest]

Because this web site has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. This thread will pit pro-life and pro-choice against one another with a lot of nasty words before the thread is finally locked. Let's just jump to the last step now and avoid the mess.

 

 

I agree with westmich. why would we want to talk about such a horrible issue on a medical marihuana forum for patients and caregivers in Michigan? why? this is ridiculous...do you know how many other forums that are actually related to that you can go waste time on? Seriously....this should be locked but I am glad I got to voice my opinion....now back to my ladies....

[Kingdiamond]

Because this web site has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. This thread will pit pro-life and pro-choice against one another with a lot of nasty words before the thread is finally locked. Let's just jump to the last step now and avoid the mess.

DITTO!

[MLM]

I agree with westmich. why would we want to talk about such a horrible issue on a medical marihuana forum for patients and caregivers in Michigan? why? this is ridiculous...do you know how many other forums that are actually related to that you can go waste time on? Seriously....this should be locked but I am glad I got to voice my opinion....now back to my ladies....

 

Hi! I just wanted to ask you if you tell your other friends what they can and can't talk about?

[Beans]

Hi! I just wanted to ask you if you tell your other friends what they can and can't talk about?

 

 

 

I dont cause my "friends" dont force their beliefs on me

 

Now can someone give me a link to the child molesters pro/con thread?

[MLM]

About my last post, I apologize if it is off topic and may seem confrontational, but don't you think life would be pretty boring if all we could talk about is Medical Marihuana, (not really, just for arguments sake)? I don't see many post's that start off, "This topic should be closed". I am surprised that I seem to be the only one that has spoke up about the unwarranted calls for the closing of a thread such as this. This thread has actually been pretty muted for the subject that it is on, have you checked the Draw Mahammad Day! thread? I have seen some pretty inflammatory postings on that thread and it's still open. Please, if you don't have anything to add to a thread, any thread, then just keep your trap shut, mmmkay!?

[+RevThad]

I dont cause my "friends" dont force their beliefs on me

 

Now can someone give me a link to the child molesters pro/con thread?

I think your comparison is a bit off, don't you?

 

Personally I am pro-life, but I understand that in this country folks are free to do that which they choose to do (mostly) with their own bodies. Attempting to force my beliefs on another human being (or 2 as the case would be) just wouldn't sit well with my personal understanding of the constitution.

 

I do not agree with my current president on many things, but one that I can solidly get behind is an effort to decrease the number of abortions, through means that don't require anybody to be forced to raise a child that they cannot or are not able to.

 

There are many positions that both sides (pro-life and pro-choice) can and should agree upon. I truly believe if we start to focus on the areas that we do agree upon, the heat and anger that surrounds the discussion of this issue will be lowered, and perhaps some meaningful things can be done for the betterment of all.

 

I wish you well.

[MLM]

I dont cause my "friends" dont force their beliefs on me

 

Now can someone give me a link to the child molesters pro/con thread?

 

I must have missed the forcing of beliefs, sorry. Now let me get back to my reruns of "Cops", booyaa! This is how threads degrade isn't it?

[Beans]

I am hoping it is how they die...

 

MK

[+RevThad]

I am hoping it is how they die...

 

MK

Be careful of what retribution you wish upon others, as such wishes often come back to haunt us.