philosophical question of the day: value of a human life

[PolarBearDog]

Ah, see in those cases I believe I can agree. I will admit when some one is more well informed than I. As I said I'm gonna lean towards the option that has the greatest potential for the most life.

A lot of the other arguments I hear are about pregnancies being difficult in some way shape or form, usually with death as a possibility due to the rare accidents. Or arguments about problems with the baby's health after birth. such was the case with my niece, she was born 3 months premature. Doctors didn't think she would live past the night. or the day. or the next. or the week.....She is now a perfectly healthy 9 year old.
So, I don't really buy into those arguments, besides that just goes into the whole what is life thing again.

And Freyja, for what you brought up- I think a big thing is that women don't choose to get pregnant all the time, there are "accidents" and worse there is rape. As for opinion, yea thats true to an extent. Things get muddied up when the issue of protecting life gets involved. And AGAIN it all boils down to when is the fetus considered alive, just as terror said earlier; because it is ok to impose your opinion on others to protect people from being victimized from others. EX. stopping a mugging/murder/rape. extreme examples but you see my point, I hope. the problems arise in issues like abortion where the line is murky and not agreed upon. and so some people are civil and some go all west bro baptist.....

[homegrown terror]

here's another facet of the discussion that admittedly is rarely a concern but still interesting to me: what is the general pro-life stance on separating a parasitic conjoined twin? if it's undeveloped (sometimes they present as just a circulatory system with a partially developed central nervous system, or just a vestigial head etc) is it considered a "life" that should be preserved, even at potential risk to the viable child?

[PolarBearDog]

seems very interesting. however.....im not well informed enough on that to be able to speak confidently on that. I guess it might matter if there was a brain developed or not.

[Freyja]

Originally Posted by PolarBearDog

Ah, see in those cases I believe I can agree. I will admit when some one is more well informed than I. As I said I'm gonna lean towards the option that has the greatest potential for the most life.

A lot of the other arguments I hear are about pregnancies being difficult in some way shape or form, usually with death as a possibility due to the rare accidents. Or arguments about problems with the baby's health after birth. such was the case with my niece, she was born 3 months premature. Doctors didn't think she would live past the night. or the day. or the next. or the week.....She is now a perfectly healthy 9 year old.
So, I don't really buy into those arguments, besides that just goes into the whole what is life thing again.

And Freyja, for what you brought up- I think a big thing is that women don't choose to get pregnant all the time, there are "accidents" and worse there is rape. As for opinion, yea thats true to an extent. Things get muddied up when the issue of protecting life gets involved. And AGAIN it all boils down to when is the fetus considered alive, just as terror said earlier; because it is ok to impose your opinion on others to protect people from being victimized from others. EX. stopping a mugging/murder/rape. extreme examples but you see my point, I hope. the problems arise in issues like abortion where the line is murky and not agreed upon. and so some people are civil and some go all west bro baptist.....

I would impose a whole lot more than my opinion on those WBB idiots.

[SnowySurface]

Originally Posted by homegrown terror

here's another facet of the discussion that admittedly is rarely a concern but still interesting to me: what is the general pro-life stance on separating a parasitic conjoined twin? if it's undeveloped (sometimes they present as just a circulatory system with a partially developed central nervous system, or just a vestigial head etc) is it considered a "life" that should be preserved, even at potential risk to the viable child?

I also don't have much knowledge on that particular example, but I would be surprised if a pro-life person would be against the removal of a parasitic twins. I don't think the parasitic twin would have self awareness that makes it more than a collection of cells being kept active by the developed twin. I wouldn't see anything wrong with giving the fully developed twin a chance at a fuller life. Especially if the parasitic twin is a danger to the fully developed twin's health.

Personally, I'm more interested in the pro-life opinion on reducing a pregnancy. Like, when a woman is pregnant with triplets naturally, but one of the triplets is endangering the other two developing fetuses. I've even heard about instances where twins are reduced to an only child for the sake of not losing the entire pregnancy. There is the option of an emergency pre-mature cesarean, but then you are choosing which child is disabled instead of which child dies. (As someone with disabilities, I say being disabled is better than being dead. ) Either way, you are stuck in a potion where you have to play God to a certain extent. Also, this situation is much more common than parasitic twins so I'm a bit more interested in other opinions about this scenario.

Personally, I wouldn't stop a pregnancy the moment it looks like it will be risky for me to continue. However, I think continuing a multiple birth pregnancy after the GYN suggests reducing is risking the fetuses' chance at life instead of risking my own life. I'll survive whether I abort or continue with all 3 fetuses (in the case of triplets). But the fetuses' are the ones who have to cross their fingers (if they have any yet XD) and hope they don't all die together because I refuse to abort 1 to save the other 2. I would feel like I reduced to save two while continuing would allow all 3 to die due to a moral hang up. I would probably always wonder "what if...", but I wouldn't regret protecting the 2 I could carry to full term.

I would also like to re-enforce the fact that my thoughts are based on naturally occurring multiple births. Large pregnancies that are the result of IVF are a different can of worms I don't feel like opening.