Hey Pro Choice Folks, Defend This!

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

When this thread first started, I sent a message to the Web-Team to stop it before it starts, the Web-Team ignored my message despite the fact that I asked for a reply (not sure what's up with that). My reasoning is that no matter how long this neverendum goes on you cannot change peoples moral opinion and this particular argument almost always digenerates to name calling and hurt.

This is a discussion that has nothing in common with firefighting and serves no useful purpose in the forum. Web-Team again(in public this time, so you won't ignore your duty) please end this discussion.

Why end it? I have actually been somewhat impressed that this issue has been discussed in such a forthright manner with little to no insults and fights. This thread is posted under the NEWS section, which means it doesn't have to have anything to do with fire fighting.

If you have no opinion about this subject, it doesn;t mean that the thread shuold be shut down. Ia ma glad that the WT lets these threads run their course-thereby not stifling fiscourse among thinking adults-until it violates the TOS. so far, it hasn't. If you don't like this thread, you certainly have the option of not reading it.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

This is an interesting article from the AP:

Brain-dead woman gives birth, then dies Mon Jun 12, 5:17 AM ET



A brain-dead woman kept alive artificially for more than two months gave birth to a premature baby girl, doctors at Milan's Niguard hospital said. A few hours after the Saturday birth, the machinery artificially keeping the 38-year-old woman alive was shut off.

The baby girl, born two months early, was breathing on her own Sunday, doctors said.

The baby, named Cristina after her mother, was born by emergency Caesarian section and weighed just over 1.5 pounds, the doctors told reporters. The woman's last name was not released to protect the family's privacy.

Doctors decided to deliver the baby after the woman's blood pressure plunged and the fetus experienced heart rhythm problems, the hospital said.

The woman was hospitalized in March after suffering the rupture of a cerebral aneurysm, and she was soon declared brain dead, the hospital said. She spent 78 days in a brain-dead state, it said.

The mother's kidneys and corneas were donated for transplant, the hospital said. Her liver was donated to another patient at Niguarda hospital, news reports said.

[ChicagoFF]

When this thread first started, I sent a message to the Web-Team to stop it before it starts, the Web-Team ignored my message despite the fact that I asked for a reply (not sure what's up with that). My reasoning is that no matter how long this neverendum goes on you cannot change peoples moral opinion and this particular argument almost always digenerates to name calling and hurt.

This is a discussion that has nothing in common with firefighting and serves no useful purpose in the forum. Web-Team again(in public this time, so you won't ignore your duty) please end this discussion.

Could you please ask them to burn all the books you don't agree with as well? Whats wrong with discussing an issue? You will never get people to agree on something simple like how to put out a fire (silly ppv fans, unneeded foam, exterior attacks, etc.) so should they shut those threads down to? There seem to be a lot of calls recently for the web team to shut down threads lately. Butch up and learn how to take a little disagreement, would ya?

[Bones42]

This is an interesting article from the AP:

I'll agree. And here are my thoughts, if it is Ok to decide to either keep this woman alive via machine or let her die, isn't that a person (or persons) taking the "role" of God? Is there a difference in terminating a person in this condition vs an unborn child that MIGHT be in that condition? Is it right to keep someone on those machines (against family wishes) because it is wrong to terminate them? Is there and where is the line drawn? WHO determines the outcome of the pregnany, abortion, life sustaining equipment or not?


And I'll agree, I think this has been a good discussion.

[manofire2]

Why end it? I have actually been somewhat impressed that this issue has been discussed in such a forthright manner with little to no insults and fights. This thread is posted under the NEWS section, which means it doesn't have to have anything to do with fire fighting.

If you have no opinion about this subject, it doesn;t mean that the thread shuold be shut down. Ia ma glad that the WT lets these threads run their course-thereby not stifling fiscourse among thinking adults-until it violates the TOS. so far, it hasn't. If you don't like this thread, you certainly have the option of not reading it.

My objection to this thread stems from the fact that no matter which side you sit on or perhaps have had to make a decission on, somebody is being labelled marally wrong a a result of that decission. If our religious, political, and medical leaders cannot come up with concensus as to when life begins, then how can we and until there can be a clear definition of when life begins then this matter is mute.

Discussion only serves to open wounds and this is a discussion that as a Captain I would not allow in my hall and therefore should not be continued here. It is an argument that cannot be won.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

My objection to this thread stems from the fact that no matter which side you sit on or perhaps have had to make a decission on, somebody is being labelled marally wrong a a result of that decission. If our religious, political, and medical leaders cannot come up with concensus as to when life begins, then how can we and until there can be a clear definition of when life begins then this matter is mute.

Discussion only serves to open wounds and this is a discussion that as a Captain I would not allow in my hall and therefore should not be continued here. It is an argument that cannot be won.

WHAT???????? As a Captain you feel that you have the right to regulate what the FF under your supervision talk about? You have got to be kidding! Our working relationship would last right up until you tried to tell me what I could talk about. Especially if that subject was not about hate, bias, discrimination or otherwise. Then I would file a grievance. Then I would win. Then you would do it again and I would win again. Finally, you wouldn''t be a Captain anymore.

This topic is perfectly legitimate. Do you realize that your posts are actually going to cause as much, if not more controversy than the actual topic?

[fflynn17]

When this thread first started, I sent a message to the Web-Team to stop it before it starts, the Web-Team ignored my message despite the fact that I asked for a reply (not sure what's up with that). My reasoning is that no matter how long this neverendum goes on you cannot change peoples moral opinion and this particular argument almost always digenerates to name calling and hurt.

This is a discussion that has nothing in common with firefighting and serves no useful purpose in the forum. Web-Team again(in public this time, so you won't ignore your duty) please end this discussion.

Ending the discussion serves no purpose. This is a contentious issue, and maybe one of us can make someone reading the discussion think about the issue in a way they hadn't before.

All the parties are discussing the issue in an adult manner, it does not violate the TOS as long as there have been no personal attacks.

(Look George, we agree on something!! )

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I'll agree. And here are my thoughts, if it is Ok to decide to either keep this woman alive via machine or let her die, isn't that a person (or persons) taking the "role" of God? Is there a difference in terminating a person in this condition vs an unborn child that MIGHT be in that condition? Is it right to keep someone on those machines (against family wishes) because it is wrong to terminate them? Is there and where is the line drawn? WHO determines the outcome of the pregnany, abortion, life sustaining equipment or not?


And I'll agree, I think this has been a good discussion.

One of the reasons that I did not add any comments to this article is because of what is missing. There is no mention of whose decision it was to keep her alive or if there were any legal documents, such as a living will, that caused them to do this. I think it is also unclear as to whether she was being kept alive solely for the purpose of the pregnancy. You can draw inferences, but there is no solid info. In addition, there was little info about her medical prognosis.

If it was her husband's call to keep her alive and if he knew it was his wife's wish to be kept alive, is he wrong? Mr. Schiavo wasn't wrong when he did the same thing with the opposite result.

That aside, the main point of my post was the miracle of how this unviable mass of tissue managed to survive in the womb of a brain dead mother and grow to be a near full term baby. Ironic isn't it?

[fflynn17]

This is an interesting article from the AP:

I have no problem with this, as long as it was her family's wishes. If the family was FORCED to do this, it would be wrong.

[manofire2]

WHAT???????? As a Captain you feel that you have the right to regulate what the FF under your supervision talk about? You have got to be kidding! Our working relationship would last right up until you tried to tell me what I could talk about. Especially if that subject was not about hate, bias, discrimination or otherwise. Then I would file a grievance. Then I would win. Then you would do it again and I would win again. Finally, you wouldn''t be a Captain anymore.

This topic is perfectly legitimate. Do you realize that your posts are actually going to cause as much, if not more controversy than the actual topic?

You may win in your jurisdiction but not mine. My departments Policy and Procedure Manual States clearly (as I believe most departments do) that you will not engage in political or religious arguments while on duty. As Station Captain it is my duty to uphold the Departments policies and procedures. Make no misunderstanding, when it comes to abortion, the argument always comes down to religion and politics.

Don't take that to mean that people can't discuss an issue, the key word is arguments. The problem is that it is my experience that the subject of abortion rarely if ever can be discussed rationally, without argument, without prejudice and without somebody getting hurt, even if it is in the crossfire.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Aside from you trying to play censor, there really is no argument here. Don't read this thread. Go away. Let us get back to an actual intelligence discourse for a change.

[manofire2]

Aside from you trying to play censor, there really is no argument here. Don't read this thread. Go away. Let us get back to an actual intelligence discourse for a change.

GO AWAY!, Fat chance.

You, in your argument has chosen the following terms for those opposing your view, within this thread and most within your posts.

A Culture of death

Morally wirong

Terrorism

Murder

Killing

The other side has used.

A womans absolute right to chose

Quality of life

Legal right

So much for intelligent discourse. This is on both sides nothing but religious and political blustering meant to discredit and suggest that the other side is morally wrong. If you were only arguing on the legal grounds, I would accept that this is "intelligent discourse" When you resort to name calling it is argument.

You are right about one thing, it is my right to turn off discussion which I feel is not appropriate and that ultimately I can only censor myself.

Go away I will, but on my terms, not yours.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

>>Go away I will, but on my terms, not yours.<<

Whatever.

The important thing is that you are going away.

[Bones42]

Ok, to go further off topic you actually have an policy/procedure that tells you what you can/can't argue about? Now THAT sounds like an administrator with way too much time on their hands.


George, I will also go as far as to say, what is the definition or beginning of life? Meaning, some people have said it's when the mass of cells are able to fend for themselves and survive, some are saying the instant the cells first join, and some are saying a point in between that. Making that decision, in someone's own mind, would definitely play into where they stand with abortion decisions. I know, for me and my wife, the first sonogram picture we saw of our first child was way before there was any "human" form to it. In my head and heart, that was my child, not an unviable mass of tissue. I cannot imagine terminating that child (although at 10, she gets me pretty damn mad!)

[jkuhn22]

Why is it even an argument that the woman has a right to chose? She made the choice to have sex (in most cases)! I am not a doctor but last I heard the purpose of sex is reproduction. So by having sex you are assuming any responsibility that comes from it. So the choice we all have is to have sex or not to. If you can't handle the responsibility then don't do it.

If an embryo is just a cluster of cells that represents nothing, then what are you and I? All I am is a bunch of cells, nothing more nothing less. So who is to say what is life. We should always be on the side saving life not taking life because we won't know the consequences until we are dead.

[baileydonk]

If these forums stuck to "intelligent discourse", how many threads would there actually be?

It seems to me that if you consider abortion murder, you have to fight against it and politeness be damned. If you considered it murder and DIDN'T fight against it, then I'd have little respect for you.
(and by "you", I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular - it's the generic "you")

I think the question of the murder of the pregnant woman is an interesting one. I think it's interesting because it seems to be generally believed that where you stand on abortion rights is directly linked to where you stand on the murder-of-the-pregnant-woman issue... if you are pro-choice you are supposed to think that counts as only one murder, if you are pro-life you are supposed to think it is two murders. Here I sit in the middle - pro-choice but feeling that someone who murders a pregnant woman should be charged with two killings. I feel this way because the woman's partner has indeed lost two loved ones, his wife/girlfriend and his expected child... the woman's parents have lost two loved ones, their daughter and their expected grandchild. It is a greater loss to the survivors in that sense, and thus I feel it is a worse crime. I know a lot of pro-choice people who would say that my feelings about this are somehow providing support to those who would take away a woman's right to choose... but I feel how I feel, and I can't pretend I don't just to give more clout to my side of a political issue. I know that my feelings are somewhat contradictory - that I consider a fetus "potential life" in the same sense as a sperm or an egg is potential life, that I don't consider it murder for the parent/s to end that potential life, but that I do consider it murder for someone else to end that potential life. Maybe how I feel doesn't make sense, but it's still how I feel. So sue me.

[manofire2]

Ok, to go further off topic you actually have an policy/procedure that tells you what you can/can't argue about? Now THAT sounds like an administrator with way too much time on their hands.

OK, think about the very real possibility that one of the persons in the Station has a daughter (or even in todays world a firefighter) who made a choice to have an abortion. Using the terminology expressed in this thread, some of you have called her a "murderer" (legalities not withstanding). Are you going to tell me that there is not the very real possibility of a volatile situation. Are you also going to tell me that it is not the responsibility of the administrator to anticipate and prevent such volatile situations.


George, I will also go as far as to say, what is the definition or beginning of life? Meaning, some people have said it's when the mass of cells are able to fend for themselves and survive, some are saying the instant the cells first join, and some are saying a point in between that. Making that decision, in someone's own mind, would definitely play into where they stand with abortion decisions. I know, for me and my wife, the first sonogram picture we saw of our first child was way before there was any "human" form to it. In my head and heart, that was my child, not an unviable mass of tissue. I cannot imagine terminating that child (although at 10, she gets me pretty damn mad!)

Again if you are discussing when life begins, you have my blessing (not that you need it) and if you can come to a determination then I truly congratulate you. Because this is a determination that centuries of theologists, governments, medical practitioners and lawyers have not been able or willing to reach concensus and until there is concensus as to when life begins, the whole arguement is mute and comes down to little more that name calling.

[ameryfd]

Fyred--Please don't take this personal. I don't wanna argue with you at all...just adding to the discussion.

But the simple fact is abortion has been the law of the land for over 30 years. There have been many attempts to change the law and they have all failed at a federal level. Fyredup

The same was said of slavery, except it was the law of the land for "four score and 8 years". It too was upheld by the courts consistently. It too was argued on the basis of religion, it too was justified under the guise of "you can't tell me what I can or cannot do with my property". It too was justified under states rights....it too, finally, was rightfully outlawed partially on the argument that, yes, the govt. can legislate morality and that the rights of one human being cannot supercede the rights of another.

I honestly believe that if enough people really cared about this issue our politicians would be bombarded with calls, letters, and e-mails demanding a change. I think most people believe this is a personal private matter and is no one else's business.
Fyredup

Check with your Senator and ask them what they get more public comments about than anything else...I'm guessing this issue ranks in the top 5.

[FDNY101TRUCK]

I am not a doctor but last I heard the purpose of sex is reproduction

So your saying you should only have sex if you want to reproduce?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Again if you are discussing when life begins, you have my blessing (not that you need it) and if you can come to a determination then I truly congratulate you. Because this is a determination that centuries of theologists, governments, medical practitioners and lawyers have not been able or willing to reach concensus and until there is concensus as to when life begins, the whole arguement is mute and comes down to little more that name calling.

For someone who doesn't think this is an appropriate discussion, you've got a lot to say.

BTW, the term is "moot".

adj.
Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.

Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
Of no practical importance; irrelevant.