Posted by Therese B. on July 05, 2001 at 10:36:59:
In Reply to: Re: parallel logic posted by Marina on July 05, 2001 at 09:58:15:
Marina,
YOU--Re: "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?"
I--(previous to your above)--Re: "A couple has a week old baby who has suffered severe brain damage due to lack of oxygen during birth. The baby is still alive but will never fully function as a normal human being, physically or mentally, and is attatched to life support. The parent(s) decide that they must do what they feel is the right thing--discontinuance of life support."
_______
Nowhere did I say that they would need life support for the rest of their lives. Please show me where! They could have stayed on life support until strong enough to be "on their own." Remember they were pre-mature and brain damaged. Non-brain damaged premies also need life support, but not forever. I did not change a thing...although perhaps I should have said "and is TEMPORARILY attached to life support." Sorry if I caused you to be confused.
______
YOU--Re:
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.
___________
Lack of oxygen was accidental. No obfuscation. I said the mother experience heart failure in the 8th month of pregnancy. The mother died in her car in front of the elem school that she taught at (but was on medical leave from.)
I did say that the fact that they were invitro (test tube) was irony--did not say or imply that it was relavant. So we agree on that.
Wouldn't the key issue (for a staunch pro-lifer) to their predicament be that they have the right to live life, at whatever quality it will be, rather than have the parent or doctor decide that their quality of life is not worth saving.
That is the issue for the stem cells from discarded invitro embryos from the staunch pro-lifer's point of view.
How are they different?
Therese
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.