next »

[slac_vap]

I was so sorry this morning to wake up and see that the tone on the "not even to save..." thread had changed so markedly.  I had read up to about page 8 before I logged off last night, and I had been impressed by the overall tone of civility.  But I digress...

A few of the posts on that thread alluded to the perceived inconsistencies in moral decision-making.  Examples were given of the pro-life individual who also advocates the death penalty (if all life is precious, why not the life of a criminal?) and the pro-life individual who doesn't support a common system of healthcare/welfare (why support a child just until birth, then ignore that child's needs?).  In my own mind, a particularly touching and thoughtful post by a pro-life poster discussed the dignity of allowing a fetus to be born so that the child can be held and allowed to expire naturally prompted me to wonder whether that same poster would support right-to-die, or even assisted suicide, of terminally ill patients.  Please note I said I "wonder;" I am not attempting to ascribe a point-of-view on that subject where the poster had not offered one.  But it does seem to me that many (not all) pro-lifers also believe allowing an adult to expire naturally is inhumane.

A couple of reasons for this post:
1)  I wish to understand what I perceive as apparent inconsistencies.  I understand that my perception is not someone else's reality.  One might have clear explanations of why one might be pro-life, but at the same time wish to block women's access to birth control.  But what are they?
2)  I wonder what moral beliefs of mine seem inconsistent to others.  A high school teacher of mine once asked me to explain how a person can be simultaneously pro-choice and anti-death penalty.  My reasoning is based on my belief about where life begins.  But it clearly didn't make sense to her.
3)  I also am interested to know to what extent I misperceive the associations between different moral beliefs.  I tend to assume (wrongly, I am certain, as I know life isn't naturally this dichotomous) that pro-life individuals also tend to be pro-death penalty, anti-socialized medicine, anti-gun control, etc.  I am interested, in this terribly imperfect sample, to what extent those associations actually exist.  Hey, you out there- are you both pro-life and pro-socialized medicine?  Please shatter my expectations.

If you are gracious enough to respond to this thread, I promise that I personally will not attack you.  I might question you, but I will do it from a place of wanting to understand.  I will refrain from hostility.  If you attack me, I will ignore you.  Of course, I absolutely cannot promise that on behalf of any other posters.  The CHE truism "you can control your own posts, but you cannot control the responses that you get" applies here.  I respectfully request that others respond appropriately, but that's as much as I can do.

 

[zharkov]

As a non-Catholic, one thing I respect about them, or at least their official set of beliefs, is they tend to be pretty consistent.  They are against abortion andcapital punishment;  against birth control andIVF.

My take is that many people's moral reasoning is pretty light on reasoning, and reflects their feelings, perhaps their prejudices.

[anxiousdee1]

I am opposed to abortion.  I believe it is a sad thing if any woman feels it is her best option.  I feel strongly that too many kids are having sex too young, but if they are going to continue to do so (and there's nothing their teachers can do to discourage promiscuity, it's up to their parents), they should be able to get the pill or condoms.  All young women need to better understand how their reproductive system works.  It would be great if young men would learn about this as well.

I think the death penalty is abhorrent.

I do not believe that physician assistant suicide ought to be legal.  Just as I advocated hospice care for mother and child in the event of a terribly blighted infant, I would advocate a similar quality of care for a terminally ill adult.

I believe that all people deserve access to health care.  I have no idea how this could work here since I'm not an economist.

I am not a Republican.  I do not believe in the things that I believe in based on adherence to a party platform.  Consistency in morals is, therefore, not terribly difficult for me.

[allbutfoundajob]

I have seen lots of people make statements similar to yours.  I personally do not understand how it is inconsistent.

You are looking at this issues from a moral perspective.  Many of the people you disagree with are looking at it from a liberty perspective based on passive rights.

An innocent child, unborn or not, has the right not to be killed.  The right to life is the most fundamental human right.

About the death penalty:  Have you read John Locke?  I think it was he who posited that a person who attempts to murder another person has from that point forward forfeited his right to live.  This is evidenced by the right of people to defend themselves.  This is the responsibility side of the liberty coin.  You can not have freedom and liberty without being responsible for your actions.  To me, it makes absolutely no sense to compare the killing of an innocent child to the killing of a guilty murderer.

Pro-gun rights is a matter of liberty as well.  The right to bear arms against a tyrannical government is just as necessary as the right to vote, the right to free speech and the right to private property for the maintenace of a free state.   

Again these are passive rights.  That is why many people believe that there is a right to have access to healthcare, but not a right to receive healthcare.  A right to receive healthcare requires that a person has the right to take from others.

[slac_vap]

What about that messy area between physician-assisted suicide and hospice care: removal of life supports?  I think I was thinking specifically of Terry Schiavo when I was thinking about this.

BTW anxiousdee, it was primarily two posts that really drove me to start this thread: yours regarding allowing a baby to expire naturally (because it was a truly thought-provoking and, I thought, sensitive post), and CBL's that suggested that well-meaning medical professionals might immediately "treat" a very sickly baby using invasive medical procedures that the parents might not have chosen.  I appreciate your thoughts.

[slac_vap]

About the death penalty:  Have you read John Locke?  I think it was he who posited that a person who attempts to murder another person has from that point forward forfeited his right to live.  This is evidenced by the right of people to defend themselves.  This is the responsibility side of the liberty coin.  You can not have freedom and liberty without being responsible for your actions.  To me, it makes absolutely no sense to compare the killing of an innocent child to the killing of a guilty murderer.

Thank you for your response, allbutfoundajob. 

I find the argument that one who attempts murder has forfeited his* right to life troubling.  I certainly understand the appropriateness of self-defense, but I do not see the death penalty as a form of self-defense.  It, in fact, accomplishes nothing toward defending the life that has already been lost.  The death penalty, further, has not been shown to be a significantly better deterrent to crime than imprisonment.  I also do not have enough faith in the U.S. justice system to allow myself to believe that innocent men are not wrongly executed (pardon the double-negative, please).  And, to me, the death of even one innocent man is the ultimate insult to liberty.

*The gender-specific term "his" is used intentionally.  If anyone wishes to call me out about it, go ahead.  I will not respond.

[anxiousdee1]

What about that messy area between physician-assisted suicide and hospice care: removal of life supports?  I think I was thinking specifically of Terry Schiavo when I was thinking about this.

BTW anxiousdee, it was primarily two posts that really drove me to start this thread: yours regarding allowing a baby to expire naturally (because it was a truly thought-provoking and, I thought, sensitive post), and CBL's that suggested that well-meaning medical professionals might immediately "treat" a very sickly baby using invasive medical procedures that the parents might not have chosen.  I appreciate your thoughts.

The case of Terry Schiavo was terribly complicated.  My feeling was that if there was any uncertainty as to her being brain dead, than the decision to err on the side of caution would have been better.  I just don't know.

I don't think that physician assisted suicide is really similar to hospice care, or the removal of life support.  I've seen both things: hospice care for relatives with cancer whose probable cause of death ended up being dehydration.  In that case the individual was given the nourishment she requested, but as she weakened (due to a ruined gastrointestinal system) she stopped asking for it and no IV fluids or extraordinary measures were taken.  She died at home surrounded by her family.  My grandmother was taken off a ventilator after several major strokes.  Her kidneys were failing and she had gained a grotesque amount of weight due to fluid retention and so forth.  Her children made the decision to allow her to die.  I think in this case they believed that the ventilator was actually unnatural and was preventing her imminent death.  They believed it was cruel to allow her to sicken further and to deteriorate so badly and continue to run high fevers and have painful infections.  So complicated.  So hard.

But physician assisted suicide seems like something very different.

[trabb]

Great thread, slac_vap, and it may be a better place for me to post something I spent about 3 hours on yesterday before deleting it.

Here's where my own moral stance may seem murky. First, here are the terms.  My sense of morality comes not from a carefully thought-out position but from a set of deeply felt beliefs.  This is not to say that I have given my  sense of what is/isn't moral no thought; it's to say that the basis of my sense of morality is not rational thought.  For me, when it comes to morality, reason plays a secondary role.  I accept certain things on faith based on the teachings of my religion and of my knowledge of the documents upon which my religion is founded.  A surprising number of things do not fall under that rubric, and when there is no basis for accepting something purely on faith, then I am free to establish my beliefs using my own reason.  (An example from Christianity: "Jesus rose from the dead" - that's a statement one has to take on faith; it's pretty much fundamental to Christianity.  "Christians should not drink alcohol" - well, no matter how passionately some people believe that, it's neither taught universally by the church nor is it self-evident in the Bible; at that point, it becomes a matter for the individual to work out.)

Sorry for the long paragraph.  Anyway, one principle that I accept on faith is that the taking of another person's life is wrong.  For that reason, I am opposed to the death penalty in any form.  However, I am less clear on the abortion issue for this reason: the question of when human life begins is nowhere near as clear as people make it out to be.  I'll explain later in the post:)

The problem, ultimately, is not the basic moral principle that taking human life is wrong.  The problem lies in how that translates into action.  Let's take the Terry Schiavo/"should we keep them on life support" cases.  As with most moral questions, there seem to be a few basic possibilities:

• One believes that we can never intervene in the natural process of life and death.
• One believes that we must always preserve life no matter what the cost.
• One must achieve a comfortable balance between those two positions.

So where's the gray area?  Quite simply, I think that taking another life is wrong, but I see no definite answer to the question of what we must do to preserve life.  I can find nothing in my belief system that says it's OK to stand by and watch someone die when I have a pill that will cure them in my possession.  Similarly, I can find nothing that says that I must take steps to keep someone with a terminal illness from dying naturally.  Thus I have to fall somewhere in between, and it's in that in-between space that things get murky.

The abortion issue:

I see the abortion issue as falling into a similar gray area.  My moral beliefs based on a faith developed of knowledge of my religion's teaching and of its most basic, founding documents tells me that taking life is wrong.  Those same authorities do not universally agree on the question of when life begins.  There's a lot of talk about the issue, but to be quite honest no-one's yet shown me anything concrete that says "a belief that life begins at conception is an essential tenet of the Christian faith." 

We're left again with three positions - all abortion is always wrong, all abortions are never wrong, or something in th middle.  I would submit that the first two positions fall into the realm of belief.  Once you admit either that some abortions are wrong or that some are not wrong, your beliefs cease to be belief and become points of negotiation.

Adding to the murkiness on this issue (as with the others we've touched on in this thread) is the question of whether the government should regulate something even if we agree that it's morally wrong.  It's in the answer to this question that we get to another perceived inconsistency. 

In the end, I think I would probably describe myself as someone who has concluded that abortion is morally wrong but who cannot find a solid basis for the government to legislate that it be illegal.  My moral belief is that taking life is wrong.  My reason tells me that I do not know for sure when life begins, and in that uncertainty, I think we should err on the side of caution.  However - and this is a big however - I'm quite certain that the process by which I have reached my conclusion that abortion is wrong is insufficient to create policy stating that it should be illegal. 

How's that for muddled...

[allbutfoundajob]

I find the argument that one who attempts murder has forfeited his* right to life troubling.  I certainly understand the appropriateness of self-defense, but I do not see the death penalty as a form of self-defense.  It, in fact, accomplishes nothing toward defending the life that has already been lost.  The death penalty, further, has not been shown to be a significantly better deterrent to crime than imprisonment.  I also do not have enough faith in the U.S. justice system to allow myself to believe that innocent men are not wrongly executed (pardon the double-negative, please).  And, to me, the death of even one innocent man is the ultimate insult to liberty.

*The gender-specific term "his" is used intentionally.  If anyone wishes to call me out about it, go ahead.  I will not respond.

First, I too despise the word "hu."

There are several aspects of your post that I will address

1.  I compltely agree about the executing one innocent person is too many.  I think a higher standard is needed for a death penalty.  Instead of beyond a reasonable doubt, I would make it beyond the shadow of a doubt or something similar.  Only in cases where there is absolutely no question, such as McVeigh.

2.  The death pnealty is not a form of self defense.  Rather, the death penalty is due to a person voluntarily forfeiting his or her right to live by attempting to murder another person.  Self defense is a manifestation of the forfeiture of the attacker's right to live any further.

With rights, come responsibilities.  When a person shows they are not responsible for the use of their liberties they should lose those liberties.  A person who abuses their right to bear arms should lose that right.  A person who abuses the right to vote should lose that right.  A person who abuses the right to live by attempting to kill another innocent should lose his or her own right to live.  Obviously, this is too simplistic.  Mercy and rehabilitation and other mitigating factors must come into play.

[anxiousdee1]

Pretty good stuff, Trabb.  The only quibble I have is with the Terri Schiavo example.  I know you may not have been referring to her specifically, but I didn't consider Terri to have a terminal illness.  The difficulty I felt in feeling certain one way or another was with the conflicting reports of her brain activity.  Was she dead or not?

Anyway, my point is that I think there is a distinction between terminally ill and unable to support oneself.  Like, a fetus is unable to support itself.  So is a newborn.  Actually, so is any human being up until a certain age.

And somehow the issue of feeding is somehow standing out here.  Because like in the example with my poor gran, it was her inability to breathe on her own (well, along with chronic UTI's and bedsores and other things).  But somehow, the inability to nourish oneself seems different.

[tenured_feminist]

One thing to keep in mind about end-of-life care is that the line between providing comfort and hastening death is very, very difficult to draw.  Or perhaps not, depending upon how one defines assisted suicide. One example:

A lot of hospices and doctors are willing to provide increasingly strong doses of morphine to patients who are going through the process of organ system failure prior to death.  Morphine depresses respiration and, past a certain point, not only hastens but is a major contributing factor to death. 

If you have an older relative who died in a hospital or hospice under a high dosage of morphine and the cause of death was respiratory failure, you have had contact with assisted suicide.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

[anxiousdee1]

Yes, well with my gran they gave her lots of morphine.  It's really horrific when I think about it, but basically they took her off the vent and she was so out of it, but she was gasping a little and they gave her morphine to "relax" her.  So incredibly sad.  The choices just weren't good.  She was too scared of dying to sign the DNR order that her kids were trying to get her to sign before the whole six-month saga began, and then she became incapacitated.  I wish she'd never been put on the vent.

[larryc]

Both sides of the usual divide on these issues are wildly inconsistent. Consider the liberal who opposes capital punishment but sees no problem snuffing out life in the womb.

[spork]

The case of Terry Schiavo was terribly complicated. 

The case of Terry Schiavo was made complicated by:

- the lack of directions that a living will and health care power of attorney would have provided

- family members who refused to acknowledge reality

- elected officials who tried to expand government power for political purposes.

As someone who has been given the legal authority to turn off someone's life support systems, and done so, I can say that when several physicians state "there is no sign of brain activity" and "this person's heart is beating only because of artificial means," that is indeed the case.

[trabb]

Here's what I'd say about Terry Schiavo: same principle, really.  What we run into is a question of the moral use of medical technology.  In short, I'm not comfortable saying we should not use medical technology to extend someone's life, nor am I comfortable saying that we must always use medical technology to keep someone alive even if that person would die if left on his/her own.  Given that I can embrace neither of those extreme positions, then I have to conclude that there are not absolutes in those kinds of cases.

With Terry Schiavo, there are all manner of details about which I do not know.  In the end, the course of action that I would determine to be moral is irrelevant; the question is whether the course of action that was taken falls within the realm of possible actions that might be acceptable.  An absolute insistence that we use every medical technology possible to keep Terry Schiavo alive no matter what falls outside the bounds; an absolute insistence that we would never use medical technology to keep her alive (i.e. we pray but no medication, no doctor) is equally repugnant.  The decision to remove life-support and feeding tubes?  Maybe it's not what I would choose to do, but my reaction is that it was a heartbreaking, horrible decision that I cannot fault as being immoral.