Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[BjornP]

Shush, Okie. Child abuse and murder are both illegal AND immoral as shit.... if YOU are the culprit, you mean old pappy.

When it's the kind and gentle guiding hand of the benevolent state, however . . .

muh State is violence

You've been awarded the State = Violence Badge.

Sweet. I hear those things earn a 1000 bonus points on the Chinese Social Credit system.

[JohnDonne]

You mean because the child is braindead, there "is no child left"? Well, I don't know, Nick.... Do you think it should be legal for the parents to hammer nails into the child's flesh, and use it an inanimate meat doll to re-live and replay moments of the child's history while it's kept alive by a machine? After all, if that's the parent's choice and it doesn't hurt the child... Both living, dying and DEAD children ought to have a right to be treated with dignity. They are persons, not things.

Fuck off, cunt.

Suffocating and starving a toddler isn't fucking dignified.

Not saying that starving a toddler who is already dying is dignified. But either fuck off, or tell me how you make this child's death more dignified, then? Come on, cunt, give us solutions. Simply let it off the life support, give it a last drop of the IV, and let nature take it's course? I have no objection to that. Keep it permanently on life support? No and fuck off, you degenerate baby-raper.

The reason we give dignity to the dead is not because they are persons that care anymore, but because of the effect it has on the family, of society. A dead baby made into a machine puppet would negatively impact the society because the living would no longer have the comfort of believing that their own bodies and those of their loved ones are guaranteed to be respected.

Which brings me to my next point:

I would argue Stephen Hawking's condition was such that if most people saw him on the street, without knowing who he was, they would shudder, in much the same way you shudder to imagine being kept on life support indefinitely, drooling and unable to communicate. To an able bodied and able minded person, it is difficult to imagine the appeal of such a situation. And yet we are surprised to find that in those whose situations seem most unbearable, the persons are in fact somehow able to find strength and dignity in through adversity. Stephen Hawking's life was valuable to himself and the world. How may a court or a doctor make the judgment that if this boy was conscious he would not want to keep going? Because they or you find such an existence disturbing?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I’m not a doctor, yet I am able to make medical decisions, parents aren’t doctors, yet on behalf of their children they are able to make medical decisions. Only when it is established that parents are unfit to make medical decisions does the state take over. Not sure what makes them unfit, it is not obviously unreasonable that these parents insist their child be given life support.

It isn't obviously unreasonable, which is, presumably, why it went to the courts. I am not sure that a court decision being unpopular, or counter intuitive means it is illegitimate, though.

The arguments for why it is unreasonable are illegitimate in that they fall flat on their face when scrutinized though, but maybe evidence in the courtroom presented was much superior to the efforts of you and montegriffo?

I haven't seen any scrutiny of the arguments whatsoever. I just see a bunch of moralizing.

[JohnDonne]

if there is no child left, how does keeping it alive hurt it?

You mean because the child is braindead, there "is no child left"? Well, I don't know, Nick.... Do you think it should be legal for the parents to hammer nails into the child's flesh, and use it an inanimate meat doll to re-live and replay moments of the child's history while it's kept alive by a machine? After all, if that's the parent's choice and it doesn't hurt the child... Both living, dying and DEAD children ought to have a right to be treated with dignity. They are persons, not things.

I think there is a obvious difference between feeding a brain dead child and mutilating a dead corpse.

Alternatively, if we continue down the government line that the child has nothing left to live for, they are still failing even a utilitarian test.

The nonsuffering child, can't be suffering otherwise not feeding it would make them torturers, is indifferent to existence, but the parents' suffering is increased.

When government can't even pass a theoretical utilitarian test... you know its bad.

This point I was hoping to get to, but you have said it clearer that I would have.

[BjornP]

I think there is a obvious difference between feeding a brain dead child and mutilating a dead corpse.

Alternatively, if we continue down the government line that the child has nothing left to live for, they are still failing even a utilitarian test.

The nonsuffering child, can't be suffering otherwise not feeding it would make them torturers, is indifferent to existence, but the parents' suffering is increased.

When government can't even pass a theoretical utilitarian test... you know its bad.

Don't know why everyone's going on about feeding the child. The child was denied food while it was being determined it was going off life support, and was fed again later - much later than I think is ethical, but he was fed and is still being fed.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with keeping the child alive for some more days, even weeks. But if we're talking years... that's what my comparison was about. This child is not simply meat, brain dead may mean non-suffering, but even the dead and dying deserve respect don't they? It is not respect to keep a child that CANNOT ever wake up, whose brain has deterioated beyond any repair, "alive".

[JohnDonne]

I think there is a obvious difference between feeding a brain dead child and mutilating a dead corpse.

Alternatively, if we continue down the government line that the child has nothing left to live for, they are still failing even a utilitarian test.

The nonsuffering child, can't be suffering otherwise not feeding it would make them torturers, is indifferent to existence, but the parents' suffering is increased.

When government can't even pass a theoretical utilitarian test... you know its bad.

Don't know why everyone's going on about feeding the child. The child was denied food while it was being determined it was going off life support, and was fed again later - much later than I think is ethical, but he was fed and is still being fed.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with keeping the child alive for some more days, even weeks. But if we're talking years... that's what my comparison was about. This child is not simply meat, brain dead may mean non-suffering, but even the dead and dying deserve respect don't they? It is not respect to keep a child that CANNOT ever wake up, whose brain has deterioated beyond any repair, "alive".

What scientific advances in stem cell and tissue replacement may grace us in the span of a lifetime? A cure may not exist, but a cure may be found.

[JohnDonne]

It isn't obviously unreasonable, which is, presumably, why it went to the courts. I am not sure that a court decision being unpopular, or counter intuitive means it is illegitimate, though.

The arguments for why it is unreasonable are illegitimate in that they fall flat on their face when scrutinized though, but maybe evidence in the courtroom presented was much superior to the efforts of you and montegriffo?

I haven't seen any scrutiny of the arguments whatsoever. I just see a bunch of moralizing.

Both arguments are essentially moralizing. But the side which insists it is absolutely right to the point of using the state to enforce its decision is also the side whose moralizing fails the test of even internal consistency.

[Speaker to Animals]

One group of people think that the individual is the property of the state, and the state has the right and authority to determine the individual's life not worth living, and to then execute the individual.

The other group is saying we fucking destroyed the Third Reich for a God damned reason.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The arguments for why it is unreasonable are illegitimate in that they fall flat on their face when scrutinized though, but maybe evidence in the courtroom presented was much superior to the efforts of you and montegriffo?

I haven't seen any scrutiny of the arguments whatsoever. I just see a bunch of moralizing.

Both arguments are essentially moralizing. But the side which insists it is absolutely right to the point of using the state to enforce its decision is also the side whose moralizing fails the test of even internal consistency.

One side is saying that, tragic as it is, a brain dead child's doctors have decided allowing the child to die is the best course of action, and the courts have backed up those doctors. That isn't moralizing. That is acknowledging that we are sometimes burdened with making decisions with terrible consequences.

[BjornP]

The reason we give dignity to the dead is not because they are persons that care anymore, but because of the effect it has on the family, of society. A dead baby made into a machine puppet would negatively impact the society because the living would no longer have the comfort of believing that their own bodies and those of their loved ones are guaranteed to be respected.

And the default of being kept "alive" artificially, even if you will never wake up, is... comforting? To who? No one society should respect.

Which brings me to my next point:

I would argue Stephen Hawking's condition was such that if most people saw him on the street, without knowing who he was, they would shudder, in much the same way you shudder to imagine being kept on life support indefinitely, drooling and unable to communicate. To an able bodied and able minded person, it is difficult to imagine the appeal of such a situation. And yet we are surprised to find that in those whose situations seem most unbearable, the persons are in fact somehow able to find strength and dignity in through adversity. Stephen Hawking's life was valuable to himself and the world. How may a court or a doctor make the judgment that if this boy was conscious he would not want to keep going? Because they or you find such an existence disturbing?

Seriously, do you not realize just how visible the fact that you haven't bothered to read the details of the story is?

This isn't a case of schlerosis or cerebral palsy, so stop being a lazy twit. Google it. It shouldn't excatly be a high bar to expect you to read a overview of the case. Do. The. Research. I'd love to discuss, even admit fault, on the morality aspect of the story, but it requires you to have actually read about it. When you're talking out of your ass, not bothering to even read a single line on what the case is about, anything you say on this subject is just digital hot air.