Posted by Marina on July 05, 2001 at 09:58:15:
In Reply to: Re: parallel logic posted by Therese B. on July 05, 2001 at 09:12:40:
You said in an earlier post that the babies needed life support to live. You stated that the father then chose to discontinue life support. Then you said that they didn't need life support to live. So which is it? If they died after he discontinued life support, then they obviously did need ongoing life support to live. If they didn't need life support to live but they were damaged by lack of oxygen, then they had CP. Should we kill all children with CP?
Your obfuscation of the issue concerning lack of oxygen whether accidental or intentional is key because this was obviously the mitigating factor in their destiny. If it was intentional, it was murder, if it was accidental, it was tragic. The fact that the twins in your story were test tube babies, is neither here nor there. In other words, it was irrelevant. The key to their predicament was lack of oxygen during delivery.
An embryo in a test tube is there for a reason, a product of deliberate intent, not accidental tragedy. As in the case of lack of oxygen, the limiting factor to life for this embryo is that it needs a womb (for nine months). This predicament for the embryo was intentional, not by accident.