The Value of Life

[perspective]

Over in the Abortion thread, we were getting slightly off-topic, so I decided to make a new topic regarding the value of life.

Those who accept abortion usually only accept it up until a certain point - the point at which a child becomes a viable human being, where viable is defined as being able to live unsupported outside of the host (mother's) body. Some only accept abortion up until other specific points - heartbeat occurs, movement occurs, etc etc.

Introspecting my own opinion, I believe that most people/families are filled with enough love and caring for their own kin, that the family is the unit who should make the difficult decisions about whether a relative should live or die; be him a newborn, or an elderly relative, or any close relative within the family who may be injured severely. This decision might entail abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, or do not resuscitate orders.

The slippery slope of this position is obvious. Of course it would be immoral for a family to decide to euthanize a relative for the sake of collecting insurance money, or some other selfish motivation. Of course the legal implications of motivations for decisions would be difficult to define, enforce. I'm not advocating that we should change the system we have now. But realistically, treating someone as an end in hisself, versus a means to an end, is always moral - is always right. Helping a suffering, lonely grandmother find her way to the next world is not an immoral, is not cruel. IMO. Each family knows how much quality of life supersedes society's arbitrary value of life. "Family" might mean only the closest, most trusted, loving persons in that person's life - mother, father, siblings. "Family" might mean that person's best friend. But those who love a person should not be lynched by society for wanting to help this person.

Question for debate:
Should our value of life be placed before the quality of life - at all costs?
In other words: Is killing NEVER ok, EVER?
Ignore the legal implications/slippery slope aspect of it - focus simply on morality.

[Nameless]

It is legal and permissible (and perhaps morally mandatory) to use lethal force to stop someone (a baby?) from killing or causing greivous bodily injury to another.

And has no-one heard of a mercy killing? The old pillow over the face... Goodnight sweet prince....

[proverbial student]

I think the situation can be easily assessed by merely asking yourself "Can the government compell you donate your organs to another individual against your will". No, of course not. "Even if it will save their life?". The answer is, of course, still a "no". This relates to abortion because the unborn child is nonetheless using the mother's organs against her will, the mother's basic right to privacy is not revoked. You might think that the welfare of the child comes above the will of the mother, but that would be incorrect. At least one reason:
One of the foundations of law is what is called the Undue Burden clause. That simply means that the goverment cannot enforce any act which an undue burden on any person for any reason (this is why the government cannot take away everything your make above minimum wage). Taken together with the above, it is quite easy to see why it would be illegal to criminalize abortion or make it unavailable.

The baby didn't asked to get concieved, that was a slip up on the mother and father's part. They may not have intended to get pregnant, but the fact remains that they are responsible for their actions, including the child's life. So why should the rights of the child be hindered just because the woman exerts her rights? Whose rights are more important here?

Now, as to the original issue

perspective wrote:

Question for debate:
Should our value of life be placed before the quality of life - at all costs?
In other words: Is killing NEVER ok, EVER?

This goes back to the Ten Commandments, doesn't it? However, the Greek or Hebrew word actually meant murder, according to some scholars, killing was ok if in self-defense, etc.. So the next question might be, is euthanasia and/or abortion murder?

The value of life should always be cherished for it's a gift from God. Who are we to judge the quality of life? Is grace not succored with the care and concern by family members of the affected one?

In my grandmother's case, my father gave a DNR order. They took her off all life support and she continued to live without it. Yes, her quality of life was horrendous, but she wouldn't let go of life. I whispered to her to let go, to go on and not be afraid. I oftentimes wonder what goes through the minds of those who are too ill to express themselves any longer. What if they still have something left to do?

I'm answering your question with too many other questions, sorry.

[dday76]

I liked some points in there about comparing the value of a life with other factors. Saying that a person is duty bound to not kill is easy until you take off the blinders and recognize our duty to do other things like prevent suffering and improve the lives of others.

I think we've all gone through that comparison idea. For me though, maybe I'm a horrible person, but maybe human life isn't all that precious. There are a lot of stupid, petty people in the world. After millions of years of evolution, we've had a couple thousand years of communal living, and a few hundred years of what we like to call civilization. Considering all of the racism, violence, poverty, and suffering we've inflicted on ourselves during this so-called civilization, I am of the opinion that the vast majority of humans are still feral animals.*

I think we would do better to call ourselves 'domesticated' rather than 'civilized'. Some of us are potty-trained house pets and some are rabid dingos. We're insecure, territorial, emotional, and lustful by every definition of the word.

So what? Just kill everyone and be done with humanity? I think that's a little extreme, but on the other hand, I don't think it's totally out of the question to spend a lot less resources providing special procedures and society support for people who are at the end of their life (or who have wasted their lives). Weed out the less-desirables and maybe one day we'll evolve from domestication to actual civilization. For now, I think we've got a long, long way to go before human life becomes invaluable.

I'm aware this will lillicit many questions, but I think I've written enough. Ask the questions and we can have a discussion.

Jason

*the term feral animals brought to you by the department of redundancy department.