A doctor can’t be held liable for resuscitating a baby who was born without a heartbeat and survived with severe disabilities, the state Supreme Court says.
The baby’s parents filed a malpractice lawsuit after the baby’s 2004 birth. They claimed doctors in Vancouver, Wash., were negligent when they continued to resuscitate the baby for almost half an hour, after he was born without a heartbeat.
The parents also said the medical team should have gotten their consent before continuing to revive the baby.
I don’t know how many XBox’s/toys/TVs/trips to Disney Land you have to buy for your kid to make it up to them, but I’m guessing it’s a lot.
I am pretty sure the parents thought process went like this:
Hmmmmmm, he won’t know what we sued for, he is brain damaged.
I am not going to make a moral judgment here. I am not in their place. Many parents go through different emotions. I do wonder had the doctors done nothing if the parents then would have sued him for lack of effort to resuscitate.
On an unrelated note for one of the funniest things I have ever seen check out this link. 23/6 is new website from the people at the Huffington Post. It is a totally hysterical website. Even if you are conservative you will laugh. The “IM” between Rudy and Pat is spot on.
http://www.236.com/news/2007/1.....1_2156.php
THANK GOD FOR A COMPETENT SUPREME COURT
AND THE PARENTS
WELL, THEY NEED TO BE STERIALIZED, BOTH OF THEM
All human life is precious, especially innocent children. The doctors had an absolute duty to do everything in their power to save that life, and the “parents” now have an absolute duty to maximize the quality of that life.
It’s simply disgusting that they were willing to allow their new-born to die for their own convenience. There’s a special place in Hell for child abusers like that.
The Piper
Piper
If you really valued ALL human life you sure as hell would dump your partisan support for the party that promotes AIDS, Iraq, and creationism.
As for the baby., the damn courts should stay out of it. I do not know the det6ails but there are “human” lives that are best … quietly … left w/o saving. It is awful to bhe in that position but the idea of the courts getting involved in worse.
I hope, for your sake, that when you are terminally ill and in great pain, some compassionate person helps you pass on.
Just because a heart is beating within a body does not mean the body represents a human life.
Some bodies are born literally without brains. They breath and the hearts beat, but that’s it. It’s pointless to keep this body alive at great expense and then refuse to make funds available for higher education.
Piper’s didactic and inflexible poition is neither reasonable nor moral, as it wastes human life, and preseves, promotes, and protects nothing except Piper and his cohorts ability to take a didactic position and stubbornly stick to it — thereby avoiding the thought and effort it takes to make a measured and adult moral choice.
@4…SJ…
I value innocent life too highly…
My oldest son turned 30 this past July. His twin brother never made it past three days despite the heroic efforts of doctors, nurses, and others at Children’s.
Born prematurely (7 and 1/2 weeks), my sons struggled to survive. Had Luke, my son who died, lived, he would have been profoundly mentally handicapped due to the damage he suffered as a result of Hyland Membrane Disease, internal bleeding in his little brain, and the malpractice of the delivering physician.
Still, I would gladly trade a living, albeit imperfect child, for the bitter-sweet memory of a dead one.
Is human life so cavalierly regarded that we dispose of it on the front end with nary a thought of what’s being done and terminate it on the back end when it becomes unpleasent or inconvenient?
Just how sick is that?
To equate the killing of an innocent life with AIDS, Iraq, or creationism is both facile and unworthy of you; while we agree on little, usually I find your thought process and POV considered and, from your perspecive, ethical. Sadly, you don’t evidence anything similar here.
While life is and always will be a risk-filled proposition, why must we be so Hell bent on snuffing it out before it has a chance to begin?
The most love-filled parents I know are those with special needs children.
In this case, the courts weren’t involved until the PARENTS sued the doctors for malpractice. I know what I’d like to do to those so-called “parents.”
As for me…The exact number of my days was determined long ere I was born; it’s not up to me or any other human being to second guess that decision. If the pain and suffering of my last days is a testimony to others of something greater than myself, then my last days will be of service.
Life should be larger than those who live it…
The Piper
@5…WR…
Aren’t you glad your mother didn’t decide to have you sucked down a sink?
Your specious and snotty comments bespeak no value on life beyond that which can be measured by an accountant.
Disgusting!
The wasted human life is yours; my son who died at three days lived a far more worthy life.
The Piper
Yeah, it’s too bad Terry Schiavo isn’t still hangin’ out, enjoying her precious life.
I’m sure what the parents were thinking was, “How are we going to pay this kid’s enormous bills?”
Now let’s see all you compassionate conservatives step up to the plate and pay taxes to support this kid, because support him you will.
When a family incurs catastrophic medical bills it can’t hope to pay, the patient becomes a financial ward of the government.
@6 “To equate the killing of an innocent life with AIDS, Iraq, or creationism is both facile and unworthy of you”
And this means what? That the innocent lives taken by AIDS, Iraq, or creationism-run-amok are unworthy?
Piper, do you truly have your head shoved so far up your rectum that you wilfully ignore the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been killed by American bombs and gunfire?
Do you really think the refusal of some to make the development of AIDS vaccines, treatments, and cures a priority is justifiable on some moral ground?
Now let’s look at what will happen if the anti-science creationists get their way. If evolution is not taught in our schools and universities, where will we get researchers who understand the processes by which viruses mutate? Who will develop the medicines to stop killer diseases with epidemic or pandemic potential? How will we develop new energy technologies to deal with oil depletion and greenhouse gases?
There are fools, damned fools, and … ideologues.
The court’s judgment was correct under the circumstances. You need to read it before stating an opinion.
However, it should generally be up to the parents to decide whether to have a handicapped child or not. Piper states his/her personal preference. Piper certainly had the right to give birth to a severely handicapped child. However, it appears Piper also wants to force other parents to do the same, regardless of how severely handicapped the child would be and regardless of the parents’ wishes.
I am certainly glad my mother chose not to abort me. However, that was her choice and she had the right to make it, not Piper.
@9…RR…
Even for you, this is pretty stupid…
Just how many lives have been lost by Creationism?
And what exactly has AIDS or Irag got to do with the essential theme of this thread? At the risk of punning, those are simply rabbit trails intended to distract.
We’re talking about killing children. That something you support? You in favor of standing by and watching infants die? Do a cost – benefit analysis on a life such that if a green-eye-shade perspective says, “Not worth it,” just let the little tyke croak?
Just how many children do you have, Rabbit…Seriously…Would you be willing to let someone decide their lives aren’t worth it, so don’t bother giving them care?
All this is eugenics run amok! No difference in attitude from that prevelent in National Socialist Germany where the “defective” and “sub-humans” were terminated with prejudice.
Really…you people are both without heart and moral compass…
The Piper
@6 Piper
WADR …
If you mnean what you say then you need to think harder. All you say about your son is heartfelt but why does it mean more than the feelings I may have for a friend with AIDs?
I too respect those who TRULY rever life .. but that revernece ought to be consistent. If you rever life, than I ASSUME you (like the POpe) oppose capital mpunishment. I ASSUME you believe we should be doing everything we can to get food to starving children? I ASSUME you think someone needs to balance the 100,000 or so lives lost in Iraq against the benefits we are trying to achieve?
Back at your son and other dvelopmentally disabled kids. I too know parents who have raised disabled kids. I admire them.
re 6 — And your smarmy ‘Mike Douglas Show’ sentiments are no help in making the truly difficult life decisions people face.
How much money did you get from your ‘frivolous lawsuit’?
Here, then, is another example of the anti-abortion crowd from today’s PI. You can kill people you don’t like after they’re born:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....ource=mypi
@12…SJ…
I have compassion for all who suffer, including those who suffer from AIDS.
Capital punishment is an appropriate response and punishment for those who commit capital crimes; we’re talking innocent life here, not exculpation from responsibility for one’s behavior.
As the father of two in the military, I mourn every loss and grieve with every family. Still…those who fight and die volunteered and believe in their cause. Read this morning’s Times article about the three Marine boots.
We should be doing all we can to get food to starving children. There’s plenty of it, but what prevents it from getting there is more often human greed, internicine warfare (Sudan, Somalia, etc.), and similar factors.
When abortion was legalized in Washington State back in the very early 70’s, those in favor assured everyone that it would only be used in extreme cases, never simply for convenience. They lied.
None of us have such perfect freedom with our bodies such that we’re allowed to jeopardize or terminate the life of another. Yet abortion kills something that’s alive. Getting all clinical about it by jargoning it away doesn’t change the essential and salient fact: abortion kills.
Now we’re to a point where some among you advocate with total ease killing children AFTER they’re born because it’s either too inconvenient or too expensive to raise them. Again AFTER THEY ARE BORN!!!
When a doctor intervenes in furtherance of the Hippocratic oath to save that life, the doctor is then sued because the parents weren’t willing to assume the responsibilty of parenthood; there are no guarantees.
Now, you can parse all the words and ideas you wish with typical HA gamesmanship, but let’s face it…how many out there think it’s OK to kill a child after it’s born simply because the child isn’t physically perfectly formed or has mental or physical defects?
Answer that question straight on, then pray that God has mercy on your soul for your answer.
The Piper
@13…WR…
I didn’t sue…to do so would neither bring my son back to life nor dignify the life he had…I’m not like you who has neither a life of quality nor dignity.
Your postulating and sneering condescension is still further proof of how highly you regard yourself. Check again…it’s an opinion not shared by any save…you.
Are you a parent? Ever lost a child or had one grievously suffer? Trust me…if you had, you wouldn’t be as cruel as your words portray you…
The Piper
@12…SJ…
My response to your post got caught in the spam filter…
The Piper
@4 Seattle Jew
As to your last remark, you are too kind.
@14…Chad T….
Typically simplistic without adding to the conversation…
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Advocating the criminal death or injury of another has no justification. Eric Rudolph, for example, is a criminal and deserves his punishment.
That doesn’t mean that abortionists aren’t in and of themselves commiting wrongs, but most of them will have to answer to a higher power for that. Unless, that is, you kill children in Kansas as does Dr. George “The Killer” Tiller. Now his is a wasted life!
The Piper
There are so many hard questions with this.
Why were they suing? If the parents are just suing to get money, I think they are awful parents. If the parents are suing to have the doctors cover their medical bills, then I can see the parent’s point.
Is there any point where a family can say, “we cannot emotionally and financially do this” and relinquish the baby to the state? To Piper?
In a capitalistic mind set, is it right for a parent coldly run the numbers and decide that a child is too much a drain on the family? It’s cost/benefits ratio is not good enough?
If the parents had signed a “Do not resusitate” degree before going in, should the doctors have ignored it? If they should have, should doctors ignore a “Do not resuscitate” degree for everyone else?
Is it just the “parents” that have an absolute duty to maximize the quality of that child’s life? Does society at large have any responblity at all? Why is foster care so lame? Why did George Bush Veto the SCHIP Program? Why do conservatives fight so hard to block discussion of birth control?
I like a tagline of Planned Parenthood. “Every child is a wanted child”.
#16 Piper Scott says:
They lied, and babies died. Hey, let’s make a bumper sticker for the “pro-choice” crowd.
The parents didn’t want a “live” baby? That is sooo Progressive!
#23. That’s not forwarding the discussion. Please try again.
@22…MS…
Problem is now this same crowd wants the right to KILL CHILDREN AFTER THEY ARE BORN!!! That’s right, the facts in Graves v. Vaughn had the child already born, and the parents complained that Dr. Vaughn didn’t simply let it die.
How progressive is that? How liberal? How tolerant? How open-minded? How so White Rose?
What’s next? Applauding school-yard massacres for their effort toward decreasing the surplus population? But a logical extension of the underlying principle.
Yet they hide behind whether there’s enough government help. I’m sorry, parents are parents government or no.
The Piper
#21 Blue John says:
Klanned parenthood. Founded by margot sanger, someone that believed in eugenics and gave speeches at kkk rallies (her own autobiography). Blacks are 13% of population, 35% of abortions. 80% of klanned parenthood offices are in minority neighborhoods despite many more poor white people.
@22…MS…
Forgot…Your bumper sticker? An instant classic! Let’s print up several hundred thousand and distribute them to those going in and out of Planned Parenthood SinkSuckingCenters.
Curious…how many of those places have fetal heart monitors or ultra-sound technology? So “clients” can get a clear understanding of what it is they’re about to have sucked into a sink?
The Piper
hmmm… sounds like a vote for an at-Home delivery, to me… away from the multi-billion dollar “revivitol” crowd- AND their troubling “health care should ALWAYS make money” ethic. ^..^
@26…MS…
Actually, the full tag line is, “Every child is a wanted child…unless we want to suck it down a sink.”
The Piper
@26 What are the proportions, by race, in terms of Economics- or in other words, “are you having a child born into eternal penury- and taking You with it?” ^..^
#26, 27, 29. That’s not forwarding the discussion. It’s just name calling. Please try again, to actually have points to discuss.
#25 Piper Scott says:
I’m not religious, but I do value human life. If my mother had been a progressive, I would have been flushed down the drain. Luckily she gave me up for adoption. Of course the HA crowd will disagree.
I’m sure you can understand the “progressive” viewpoint, a mentally handicapped person might not be able to vote democrat. We saw what happened a few years ago with that problem with hanging chads.
Many “pro-environment” people have already suggested reducing the number of humans on the planet. No doubt part of their solution.
Save the planet, kill a kid. Another bumper sticker for the progressive movement.
@31…BJ…
Who died and left you in charge?
The Piper
#31 Blue John says:
I don’t believe #26 called you any names. All I did was point out the fact that an organization you support has a colored past. Ask yourself why you took offense at it.
Ok,Back to the topic… so the parents don’t want their child, and wish it had died. That’s not progressive or conservative. That’s just sad.
Now, for example, Piper or Marvin, are you calling your lawyer to ask that couple if you can take custody of their child? You have compassion, they don’t. What would you do?
@35…BJ…
“That’s not progressive nor conservative…That’s kust sad.”
No…it’s criminal! Or should be!
And don’t try to fob off a guilt trip on me or Stamn; I don’t see you lining up to volunteer!
I raised my five children, and I would have gladly, gleefully, and thankfully included the sixth…disabilities and all. I wouldn’t have asked you or the government to raise him.
Guts and responsibility are required to be a successful parent. The ones at issue have neither.
Try again…so far you’re 0-fer.
The Piper
I took offense because it didn’t intelligent content with comments like Klanned Parenthood? It was just a little child going, “welll…you are a poopoo head.”
I would be just as inflammatory without adding content. Here goes:
—
Given the few facts, I’d guess the parents were conservative, and the baby was just costing them too much money. Progressives are the only one with compassion for kids once they are born. (I’ve heard of conservative parents, when they found out their kids were gay, wished that the kid had died at birth)
—
See. How does that forward a discussion?
Piper, et al: — Nobody killed the baby. It was born dead (God’s Will?) and the doctors resuscitated the dead body because they could.
Who are you to circumvent God’s Will?
Piper: When your baby son died, did you pursue a frivolous lawsuit against the doctor?
My guess is that you did. If you did, then you are resposible for my insurance costs going up.
#36: — You haven’t scored a single debating point, Piper.
Name One.
“I don’t see you lining up to volunteer!” – nope. Neither are you. You just want to tell other people how live their lives. You want to complain rather than be responsible.
And we did step up and volunteer. I and my partner adopted a child out of foster care. Just one kid because we knew we could “maximize the quality of that life” for that one kid. We know what our limitations are and what we can handle.
I am aware of the contractions in this. If his parents had been responsible, our child might have been aborted. But they were not responsible, and not good parents and now we have a wonderful child.
And if something happens to my child, god forbid, I will still want my child. I’m not those parents. And I’m progressive.
#37 Blue John says:
Except you are making shit up, I posted facts. Want to discuss the facts of klanned parenthood?
Piper, you’ve been successfully cotroverted on every point.
The only thing you are successful at is convincing the credulous that you are in favor of LIFE, but that is a demonstrable falsehood.
You treacly repetition of your adoration of all ‘innocent’ life is, by-the-by, scripturally unsound — unless you are speaking of animals.
@38 – 40…WR…
Who am I to circumvent God’s will? Who are you to claim you know it?
If you’d bothered to read all my posts, you’d know I didn’t sue. Here’s what I said, addressed to you, @17…
“I didn’t sue…to do so would neither bring my son back to life nor dignify the life he had…I’m not like you who has neither a life of quality nor dignity.”
How many children do you have? You keep asking questions, yet you refuse to answer them.
Debating points? There you go again…Judge, Jury, and Executioner…Emphasis on the Executioner.
The Piper
@41…BJ…
New here, eh?
If you aren’t prepared to go at two-fisted, than crawl back in bed…or under it.
The Piper
#39 White Rose says:
You insisted that Piper hasn’t scored a single debating point. If he has ever said your reading comprehension is sub-par, there’s a point.
In #17 he replied to you I didn’t sue
Marvin Stamn. A quick google search shows that Margaret Sanger has some pretty awful quotes associated with her. But that’s not the discussion. Try to stay on track.
The discussion is about wanted children and what do you do with parents and kids who don’t want theirs?
I think all kids should be wanted and loved and cared for. Progressives and Conservatives should be able to agree on that. Don’t you?
Would it change the argument at all, if the parents were just suing for medical costs of ongoing care? The article doesn’t say.
Piper, you’re obviously passionate about this subject. Fair enough, and I’ll try to be respectful with my response. You say:
There’s a difference between aborting or actively killing a severely disabled child and choosing whether or not to use heroic measures to resuscitate a child whose heart was not beating when it was born.
This, like abortion, is a deeply personal decision that cannot be covered by some sort of blanket law. There is no consensus on the morality of these sorts of decisions and therefore it is wrong to attempt to make laws to force a behavior one way or the other.
Forget, for a minute, us godless liberals. Picture Christian Scientists in a situation like the parents in the original article. They presumably would not want the heroic measures taken for what you (I hope) would have to concede are deeply held moral convictions. Are they wrong? Why? Why is your moral compass better than theirs?
In another post you say:
To which I would reply, “it doesn’t matter.” It doesn’t matter what I think. I’m not in that situation. And again, there is a difference between “kil[ling] a child” and refusing heroic measures.
You & I have done this dance over abortion. I know I’ll never change your mind but I hope I’ve given you something to think about.
I’m honestly puzzled why you republicans are all for economic freedom and self-determination but go all authoritarian when it comes to personal decisions made by individuals. It seems inconsistent and wrong to me.
-OM
#47 Blue John says:
I don’t believe I’m the one that brought up planned parenthood.
Of course I agree that’s why I’m pro-life.
@48…BJ…
Really…how shallow are you?
Read the opinion posted at the Washington Supreme Court website http://www.courts.wa.gov/opini.....37.opn.pdf.
Parents sue a doctor who saves the life of a child? Sue for medical costs and ongoing care? What is this? A Salvador Dali painting or real life?
It’s the parents’ responsibility to care for the child, not the doctor’s. It’s the doctor’s responsibility to revive the child, not let it die. The court held the doctor didn’t commit malpractice. Too bad it couldn’t rule on whether the parents committed it.
You can’t parse this with, “Oh, gee, it’s all just so hard!”
No it’s not! Life has risks, parenting has risks, you assume those risks and you do the right things, which don’t include killing your children…unless you want to be Washington’s answer to Andrea Yates.
The Piper
#50, Trust me, given this crowd, I won’t again, unless that’s the topic. I just liked the tag line and wanted to give them credit.
“Every child is a wanted child”. Who can argue with that?
Thanks for the supreme court link. The original article did not include it. Interesting read. Sounds like the court was very justified in their opinion.
Ok, I can agree with you the parents are not nice people.
Now how do you extrapolate out that, because the parents and lost sued, progressives want to practice eugenics?
I meant to type
… because the parents sued and lost, progressives want…
@49…OM…
At least you’re willing to approach this on an above board basis, agreement on issues aside, and for that I thank you.
Points:
On differences…abortion…actively killing…heroic measures. Where I live, there aren’t any differences.
Abortion involves killing that which was alive…Call it tissue, call it a fetus, call it a child, call it whatever. Before the abortion, it was living. Afterwards, it is dead.
I’ve never had anyone satsifactorily explain to me what would happen to that piece of tissue if the mother said, “Let me think on this a few months, and get back to you.” Say she thought on it for nine-months, would you support abortion then?
Functionally, what’s the difference between the decision in the first trimester versus two days after birth?
There is no consensus on the morality surrounding theft, ask the thieves who incarcerated. That doesn’t prevent us from insisting that we all observe a single standard of morality on the issue.
Eugenics and National Socialist Germany…
Here’s something Knute Berger said over at Crosscut just a few days ago:
“Despite our collective horror about the Holocaust — the extreme Nazi expression of eugenics — there is a general unwillingness to own up to the sorry legacy of eugenics in America and Europe, where hundreds of thousands of people were forcibly sterilized, lobotomized, and institutionalized to “sanitize” society of the poor, disabled, gay, mentally ill, etc. A general sense of amnesia or an attitude that nothing we did was as bad as what Hitler did seems to pervade.”
http://www.crosscut.com/mossba.....+is+right/
He then went on to be especially critical of the PNW for its enthusiastic embracing of the concept and techniques of eugenics. Just another example of how special this region is!
To blithely apply Godwin’s Law (bring it up some time when next the usual suspects call President Bush a nazi, would you?) is to conveniently ignore that the exact same mentality that promoted cleansing society of the mentally and physically handicapped is at work here, only by way of a malpractice suit for damages.
These parents preferred a dead, not lving, child. How eugenic of them…
Personal decisions…
I’m all for personal decisions, but they also come with consequences and personal responsibility and accountability. The latter functions always seem to be missing.
I can’t make a personal decision to walk into your home and take whatever appeals to me. I can’t make a personal decision to simply off those on HA with whom I disagree. My 1985 snip-snip aside, I can’t make a personal decision to have sex without being held accountable and responsible for the foreseeable consequences.
Your puzzlement is solved by thinking less in terms of, “Gimme, gimme, gimme,” and more in terms of, “I reap what I sow.”
Again…you addressed issues with respect, and I both respect and appreciate that. Given the human cost involved and lives at stake would that others showed such class.
The Piper
Piper, how do I ask this delicately… what is your opinion about condoms for birth control?
@56…BJ…
I’m not a Catholic, if that’s what you’re asking.
And there is no such thing as delicate at HA.
Birth control doesn’t kill life.
I don’t think condoms should be given to children since they’re too young to make adult decisions on sexuality.
And I’m also opposed to pin-holing condoms.
The Piper
Okay, Piper … I’ll try to address a few points and then we’ll just have to agree to disagree because I doubt this will come to any resolution.
“abortion…actively killing…heroic measures. Where I live, there aren’t any differences.”
Obviously, from my perspective, there are. That’s kind of my point.
“There is no consensus on the morality surrounding theft, ask the thieves who incarcerated.”
Piper, this argument is bullshit and you know it. American society overall certainly has come to a consensus about theft and that’s why there is no controversy over laws regarding thievery.
“Say she thought on [whether or not to have an abortion] for nine-months, would you support abortion then?”
There is the issue of viability which the SC used in Roe and other decisions to come to the trimester-based basis for what abortions are acceptable or not. I think that’s a pretty good way of looking at it.
“bring [Godwin’s Law] up some time when next the usual suspects call President Bush a nazi, would you?”
Recognizing this was just a flip comment, nonetheless I imagine you can fight your own battles.
“These parents preferred a dead, not lving, child. How eugenic of them…”
Wow, have you talked to them? If I had to guess, I’d say they probably wanted a live, healthy baby. I can’t even imagine how painful it was for them to watch that baby being resuscitated for a half hour. Here’s the money point: I think it’s pretty damned superior of you to presume that you should be able to tell those people what should have happened to their baby. I picture their anguish over the whole damned deal and I want to weep. You want to sit in judgement. That is my problem with your position.
Should they have sued? I don’t know, I’m leaning toward probably not.
Finally, I’ll tell you my mother has a “Do not resuscitate” order in force at the facility where she lives. I respect that and I expect the staff to do the same. Is this eugenics? Why or why not? If not, why is her personal decision about end-of-life care any different than the other decisions we’re discussing?
-OM
Yes, whatever happened to birth control…making a responsible decision to have (or have not) a child BEFORE its birth?
And BJ@23: “If the parents had signed a “Do not resusitate” degree before going in, should the doctors have ignored it? If they should have, should doctors ignore a “Do not resuscitate” degree for everyone else?”
I am not aware that a person can make a “Do Not Resuscitate” decision for another person. Think of the possibilities…
@57: Uh-oh.
“I don’t think condoms should be given to children since they’re too young to make adult decisions on sexuality.”
Wait…you oppose abortion but you don’t want to give kids the tools they need to avoid getting pregnant?
Here’s a hint: young or not, kids make decisions on sexuality whether you like it or not. Why not equip them to make the best decisions? That includes making your rules and desires clear about what “dating behaviors” are OK but it must also include giving them the tools to avoid screwing the entire rest of their lives up.
Oh man, now I’m starting to get mad and snarky. Your position is ludicrous on its face.
-OM
@58…OM…
Continuing with respect and not getting snarky on this end…
Had that been my son – the son I lost – I would have wept with gratitude at the heroic effort of that doctor in bringing life back that which was once dead…And would possibly have added the name Lazarus as an additional middle name.
The Piper
Well, I’m going to give my child the tools they need. Every parent should. I don’t need a school to tell them. I will. And if they tell all their friends, so much the better. Gotta love viral marketing.
When my child becomes old enough to have sex, I will have started talking about it 5 years before. Cause kids should not be having sex till they are not kids, but some do. Mine might. I’m going to stress abstinence is better until they are older, (like 24 (grin)), but if they cannot wait, use condoms and other birth control, EVERY LAST TIME, It’s not negitiable. Could they still get pregnant or get HIV, possibly, but the chances are a lot less.
That’s the way I make help make sure every kid is a wanted kid.
@60…OM…
Again…two wrongs don’t make a right.
Children shouldn’t engage in sex, and society shouldn’t make it either easy for them to do it or insulate them from the consequences of doing it.
I’m no nihilist when it comes to this stuff.
Does this mean that kids will stop having sex? Please! What do you take me for?
Life has pain, and part of that pain is coming to grips with the realities of the consequences of our behavior. The culture has done a damn fine job of degrading and debasing right from wrong. Does that mean we must go along for the ride, tossing our hands in the air proclaiming, “Nothing we can do?”
I sure as Hell didn’t raise my kids that way. And I’ll bet you don’t raise yours that way either.
The easier it’s become for kids to get condoms and other birth control, the more out-of-wedlock and teen births we’ve seen. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the corelation.
Consensus or not, what’s right is right, and what’s wrong is wrong.
The Piper
@63: Oh man, nope not gonna buy that.
Do you advocate not teaching kids to use a seatbelt so that they aren’t “insulated” from the consequences of their behavior?
Did you never make a stupid mistake as a teen?
Do you remember being a teenager? I do. When adults told me “don’t have sex” I said, “psht. Right.” and did what I wanted, because I knew EVERYTHING and because they were old fogies and stupid.
I can’t figure out whether you don’t trust teens at all “can’t teach them anything about birth control (nevermind protection from STDs) because they might USE it!” or too much “if I just tell them not to have sex, they won’t. Oh, happy!”
You, of course, are free to raise your kids however you see fit. Thank god you can’t tell me how to raise mine.
@64…OM…
The law proscribes driving w/o a seatbelt. Is there a consensus? In addition, when they were little, my kids knew the car didn’t move until they were belted in.
Do you take the same “Psht, yeah, right” attitude with your kids in re drugs and alcohol? Driving drunk? Cheating on tests? I mean, kids do what kids do…
And it’s less telling kids not to, more teaching them how best to live life. If you instruct children that their lives flourish when they follow the rules versus having to suffer the consequences when they break the rules, then you give them tools with which to make good decisions.
All kids make mistakes, and I made more than my fair share. But I was raised to know right from wrong and that when I did wrong, I had to suffer the consequences.
I also knew that my mother would love me irrespective of my decisions and stand with me no matter what. That unconditional love motivated me more than I even understand today to want to avoid doing anything that would hurt her. I tried to raise my kids the same way, and, while we both screwed up at times, I have children of whom I’m tremendously proud and grandchildren of great promise.
It’s not a question of, “Don’t, don’t, don’t…” but, rather, one of teaching the way a child should go so that when he or she is older, the child won’t depart from that path.
The Piper
#65. You are not biologically hardwired to cheat, take drugs, drink alcohol, in the way you are hard wired to be interested in sex. You don’t have a hormonal need to download pirated music. I’m not saying that kids should be allowed to run wild, but for the ones that are going to experiment, they need to have the right knowledge.
“…when he or she is older, the child won’t depart from that path.”
But what if they do? What then?
@66…BJ…
What do you do? What then?
You stand with your children because you love them. You work through the pain and the necessary consequences. You never, ever, ever judge them nor give them cause to think they any less beloved than they were the day they were born.
You help them, guide them, support them, embrace them, and walk with them such that they grow and learn through their mistakes.
Goes with the parenting territory.
Consider…those of you with young sons…Boys don’t learn to drive until they’ve totalled two cars each. Girls generally only total one, though my youngest daughter equalled her brothers. There were some months when the car insurance bill was north of $600/month. Those kids worked their hind ends off coming up with their share.
Parents are supposed to be the ones who train, guide, and lead; children shouldn’t be abdicated to or be allowed to dictate terms.
The Piper
But what if they do? What then? “Tough luck, you are on your own, hope you don’t die. Write when you find work. Get out.”
#66 Blue John says:
Compare the rates of teenage pregnancy 40 years ago and today. What caused the increase?
@68…BJ…
Sometimes tough love is necessary. I had to do that once to one of my sons. He’s now a successful business owner an good husband who subsequently thanked me for standing pat on what I believed and not caving to his admitted bad behavior.
Sometimes it’s necessary, but many times it’s not. You don’t abandon your children…again, you stand with them and help get them through it.
The Piper
#58 OneMan says:
The difference is your Mom is making the decision on her own life, not the life of another.
Sorry, Pipe, I don’t have the time to wade through all your lengthy ramblings. I was wrong about the lawsuit.
Bottom Line: No one will take you seriouly about your opinion on the sanctity of foetal life and the necessity to revive the tragically stillborn, when you simultaneously actively work to deny health care to poor children.
Your position is inconsistent. And please, don’t be an asshat and start quoting Emerson on me.
I mostly agree with you.
But not teaching them about sex and the consequences of sex, in my mind, is like not teaching your child about firearms. They need to know how dangerous they can be and how to use them properly. Sure, most kids who don’t know about guns won’t hurt anyone, but a few do. My kid will know how to be safe.
There is an implied threat there, if you noticed it. “I don’t have to listen to my child, I won’t have them dictate any terms to me. I don’t have to consider that my child may do something I don’t approve of. I won’t allow it.”
@58…OM…
I missed the DNR point, sorry, and didn’t catch it until @71…Stamn.
There’s a difference between artificially prolonging life, and deliberately ending it before its natural course has run.
My mother, in her final days, had a DNR, too, and it was respected. No machines, tubes, or artificial means to prolong what naturally was about to end.
Again…before the beginning of team, each of us was allotted a certain number of days. To work against that calculation by either shortening or lengthening the number, isn’t in the natural order.
BTW…In your own way, you seem to be an honorable person, so I’m confident you’ll both support your mother in her decision and give her the best care you can.
The Piper
@72…WR…
Why do I have this sense you’re a regular under a new name?
Whatever…bottom, bottom, bottom line…no matter your name, you are a bore…both unclever and mind-numbingly un-original.
Instead of reading off a script, try living other than at the direction of your ideological masters. Puppets should at least be amusing.
The Piper
@73…BJ…
Of course, you teach them about sex and the consequences. But you also teach them about the right and wrong of it.
I have both sons and daughters, which meant I sought to teach my sons to behave towards girls and women they way I wanted boys and men to behave toward my daughters.
Were they perfect? Probably not, but deviations from the moral compass while they were young aside, they’re all pretty much headed in the right direction now.
Yes…teach them, but don’t just teach them the mechanics of it without teaching them the values of it.
The Piper
isn’t that a given? In fact, that’s what I fault schools for, When I got sex ed, it was just the mechanics.
@77…BJ…
Then we may agree on more than you know…If you’re teaching your children values, respect, with both reinforced by affirmation and love, then I’m certain they’ll turn into responsible, respectful adults and contributing citizens.
Can’t ask for more than that!
The Piper
@13 Piper
I have compassion for all who suffer, including those who suffer from AIDS.
Compassion is useless w/o action.
Capital punishment is an appropriate response and punishment for those who commit capital crimes; we’re talking innocent life here, not exculpation from responsibility for one’s behavior
And which deity told you this? Did Jesus come in a shining light and tell you “do unto thise who violated section4.5 of the penal code as you will.”
Really, I hope you got a recording that lets YOU make this decision for otherwise ..you have just confessed to murder.
As the father of two in the military, I mourn every loss and grieve with every family. Still…those who fight and die volunteered and believe in their cause. Read this morning’s Times article about the three Marine boots.
In other words you feel that YOU have the right to hire people to give their lives? Where did you get THAT authority??
Last time I read Christian morality, YOU were SUPPOSED to consider it a sin to hire someone else to do sinful things.
So a hiring someone to get killed is not amoral?? What about those Iraquis who die in warfare?
We should be doing all we can to get food to starving children. There’s plenty of it, but what prevents it from getting there is more often human greed, internicine warfare (Sudan, Somalia, etc.), and similar factors.
How can you live with yourself? First you say that the lives of your kids are sacred to you and you would do anything to preserve “life,” THEN you have the arrogance to say .. “as far as helping starving kids elsewhere I would do more if it were more convenient for me.”
Tell you what I’ll do for you my CHRISTIAN friend, I will be very happy to give you the address of Medecin sans Fronteirs, a charity founded and run by French Jews, and assume you will forthwith send every penny you might otherwise spend on self indulgence to these good people.
When abortion was legalized in Washington State back in the very early 70’s, those in favor assured everyone that it would only be used in extreme cases, never simply for convenience. They lied.
WHO LIED??? It seems to me it is your side with the sanctimonious claim to protect all life that was willing to see kids born who could never be raised. How many mentally disabled kids have YOU adopted??? Moreover, by what right to you accuse women of WANTING ot kill babies.
You need a mirror.
None of us have such perfect freedom with our bodies such that we’re allowed to jeopardize or terminate the life of another. Yet abortion kills something that’s alive. Getting all clinical about it by jargoning it away doesn’t change the essential and salient fact: abortion kills.
Abortion kills what? What exactly do you think dies in a first term abortion? How much are you willing to spend to keep the 1/3 of conceptions that spontaneously abort alive?
Do you even know what a conceptus or blastula is???
Pipe, I am a pretty moral guy and I do OPPOSE ALL TAKING OF LIFE except for
1. voluntary suicide
2. heroic scarifice for others
3. life of cells that do not comprise the person’s identity.
Is a blastula alive? As a scientist that is a meaningless question. A blastula is no more or less alive than the cells I remove when I shave or urinate. If your DEITY says that he has inserted some sort of thing, a soul, into the conceptus, I respect YOUR right to believe in this but first, you need to show me you are consistent and so far it seems like only your own kids matter.
Now we’re to a point where some among you advocate with total ease killing children AFTER they’re born because it’s either too inconvenient or too expensive to raise them. Again AFTER THEY ARE BORN!!!
BULL SHIT. How many babies died in Iraq or Ruwanda? There are a lot of unadoptable kids in the USA, esp some with AIDS. You want one? I will arrange ti for you.
No your side is the ones who advocate this. Your effin president just vetoed a child care bill because it was too expensive.
When a doctor intervenes in furtherance of the Hippocratic oath to save that life, the doctor is then sued because the parents weren’t willing to assume the responsibilty of parenthood; there are no guarantees.
I thought you were a Christian? Now you are invoking a pagan oath??? Have you read the oath? Do you often accept pagan morality?
Now, you can parse all the words and ideas you wish with typical HA gamesmanship, but let’s face it…how many out there think it’s OK to kill a child after it’s born simply because the child isn’t physically perfectly formed or has mental or physical defects?
YOU DESERVE TO BE FLOGGED. Tell me, give me the name of one liberal leader who has advocated such a thing? The ONLY people I know who advocate such shit are conservatives… or were you against the Iraq and Vietnam wars? And how did you vote on the school levi..
Answer that question straight on, then pray that God has mercy on your soul for your answer.
I will turn it around. I know many wonderful people .. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Aetheists … None of these people I admire would ever say the sorts of things you say.
I hope for your sake that I am correct and that your good Jesus is a myth. If not, I hope he is very willing to forgive your sins.
@79…SJ…
Quickly since I’m very busy right now…Have you ever heard of Peter Singer? Familiar with his theories?
The Piper
@80 Yes. Some. So?
@82…SJ…
From Singer’s own Princeton University website – http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html :
“Q. You have been quoted as saying: “Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.” Is that quote accurate?
A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term “person” to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection – but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.”
The very words of a leading intellectual on the left teaching at a left-leaning Ivy League university. Tell me if that’s not essentially what the “parents” in the case at issue sought to do? Kill the infant?
More on your other misstatements later…
The Piper