Heartland

eotunun: i'm sorry, but everyone, and i do mean EVERYONE, knows what is the natural response to this. You claim you don't, but you do. You think the fact that you claim you don't makes you better, but that's not the case at all.

Just because it's the natural response, doesn't mean it's the right response. Natural doesn't equal good.

itnAklipse wrote:in simply caring for a "person" whose life serves no purpose or meaning.

IMO no-one's life serves any "purpose or meaning" beyond that we choose as a society to give it.

In 200 years time we'll all be dead anyway so who gives a f*ck.

Seriously, this child's life has purpose and meaning for her parents. I honestly don't know how I'd react in a similar situation, but if they are happy to spend the rest of their lives caring for her, I can see nothing unnatural or wrong with that, quite the opposite in fact. Is it not a natural human feeling to want to care for one's offspring?

markfiend wrote: In 200 years time we'll all be dead anyway so who gives a f*ck.

f**king goth!

I think itnAklipse is really underestimating how "natural" it is for human beings to want to preserve life. I'm not of the opinion that it should be preserved at all costs and in all circumstances, in fact I do tend towards the opinion that we are prolonging fairly miserable existences rather too often these days. If I ever end up paralysed, brain damaged or in a persistent vegitative state, unable to move in my hospital bed, God knows I'd want that plug pulled. But as I've already stated I think the best person to make the judgement is the person who's life is in question! If they are incapable, then those close to them, those who have some idea of what the person they care for is experiencing.

At the heart, I don't think anyone can sit in an ivory tower and pontificate on the worth of another's life. Like a Roman emperor giving the thumbs up or down. Live it, or watch someone you've given birth to live it, then let's hear what you have to say. Armchair polemics can only ring hollow to those people whose real lives are coloured by these issues.

I find your utilitarian attitude to life rather alarming, itnAklipse. Your judgement seems to be based on the question, How much use can a person be? Apart from the fact that there are plenty of able-bodied and healthy people who will sit on their arse eating Pot Noodle all their lives, never contributing anything to our civilization... is that all human life boils down to? Function?
What is the Great Plan in which we all have to serve some purpose? Has human life no worth in and of itself, at least to the person living it and to those who created it?

And I'm particularly interested to know what you are doing to forward mankind, that makes you able to be described as a person without inverted commas around the word. If it's all about what an individual can offer the world - what contribution are you making?

boudicca wrote: as I fail to see why it needed to be done.

The parent’s argument which does seem logical, assuming she isn’t in anyway aware, and that her parents are always there for her, is that it was necessary because by remaining in a permanent child-like state she has a better quality of life.

They argue that if she were to develop and grow then they would have to use machines instead of themselves to transport her to and from bed, bath, toilet etc and that therefore she would have less ‘feeling’ contact, which apparently reassures her.

And that by being lighter in frame, she is less prone to bedsores and the likes; by not developing breasts she will be more comfortable in her wheelchair and that by not having the trauma of period pains etc…which she apparently wouldn’t be able to understand, let alone communicate, she would also benefit.

Further, they suggest that by stunting development she will be less likely to be sexually abused by those who will look after her in later life.

I suppose that assuming her rights haven’t been violated, then ethically, it comes down just how close to playing god can ‘we’ stand. Of course if god no longer exists then this isn’t an issue is it?

paint it black wrote:...by stunting development she will be less likely to be sexually abused by those who will look after her in later life...

To be honest, this angle had occurred to me; I wasn't aware it had also occurred to them. It's pretty f*cked up that it should even be an issue, isn't it?

itnAklipse wrote: Regarding Ashley X, and this might not be related to PIB at all, as he mentions Ashley is an extreme case, what makes the whole thing more unpalatable to me, is the sheer idea that many people use a considerable amount of their time which they could use much more purposefully and meaningfully, in simply caring for a "person" whose life serves no purpose or meaning. Now as i say this, i am familiar with the feeling that it's not quite as simple as to deny any meaning and purpose of her life, but what purpose or meaning her life might serve is, i fear, out of the reach of any human being,

What? 42?
What was the question?

markfiend wrote:

paint it black wrote:...by stunting development she will be less likely to be sexually abused by those who will look after her in later life...

To be honest, this angle had occurred to me; I wasn't aware it had also occurred to them. It's pretty f*cked up that it should even be an issue, isn't it?

I am reminded in this regard of a Canadian punk band with a song titled "Ordinary People Do f**ked-Up Things When f**ked-Up Things Become Ordinary." It doesn't really say anything good about where civilzation is headed that this sort of thing needs to be taken into account, does it?

sultan2075 wrote:

markfiend wrote:

paint it black wrote:...by stunting development she will be less likely to be sexually abused by those who will look after her in later life...

To be honest, this angle had occurred to me; I wasn't aware it had also occurred to them. It's pretty f*cked up that it should even be an issue, isn't it?

I am reminded in this regard of a Canadian punk band with a song titled "Ordinary People Do f**ked-Up Things When f**ked-Up Things Become Ordinary."

Very true.

Thanks to Ez for giving a bit more info there. As far as the question of God in all this is concerned, I've never seen why a belief in God should necessarily influence any of this. If you believe in a bloke sitting up there on a cloud, "deciding" when an indivdual's time is up, then that's one thing. Personally I think that kind of view of God belongs in Sunday School.
If one takes the view of God as immanent, as I do, then there is no conflict.
But assuming someone takes the view that God is a transcendent "higher power", has that higher power not given us free will and the means to carry out His (or Its) will? "Believers" too often tend to neglect their own moral duties in this world I think, they seem to take the attitude that God will do what needs to be done for them. He will punish those who do wrong, He will improve a bad set of circumstances, He will kill someone if they should not be alive. I tend to think that even if there is a bearded old man sitting up there, he must be looking down and thinking "Those lazy feckers, they keep looking for lightning bolts when I have placed the means to change things and make decisions at their fingertips."

itnAklipse wrote: Regarding Ashley X, and this might not be related to PIB at all, as he mentions Ashley is an extreme case, what makes the whole thing more unpalatable to me, is the sheer idea that many people use a considerable amount of their time which they could use much more purposefully and meaningfully, in simply caring for a "person" whose life serves no purpose or meaning. Now as i say this, i am familiar with the feeling that it's not quite as simple as to deny any meaning and purpose of her life, but what purpose or meaning her life might serve is, i fear, out of the reach of any human being, unless of course she truly enrichens the life of her family, which i don't deny it might do, so as to make them "better people" on the whole.

Meaning.. meaning.. meaning..
Remember that you´re standing on a planet that´s revolving!
If you go into the question of the meaning of life, you may have to take a look at how it began.
You may approach this by reading old scriptures, or use modern science.
Scriptures say some very important (In fact THE important spirit) wanted to have a wee dirtball in an out of fashion arm of a meaningless galaxy somewhere populated. Nice story.
If you read Stuart Kaufmann´s "At home in the Universe" you may find there are plaussible explanations available that use verified ideas of chemics and chaos theory, a serious branch of maths, to explain how life could develop fairly quickly and that it, in fact, had to happen. For no reason other than that the necessary substances are there. It´s an accident waiting to happen.
Knowing that, and listening to the story the scriptures tell again, can I still believe a word written in there?
Bugger, NO!
About as much do I give about conclusions drawn from them.

I lost a really good lengthy post about your use of the term "natural" this afternoon due to a system crash, I will try to rewrite as well as possible:
You keep pointing at what´s natural human behaviour, what is matching instictive human behaviour. But what is human instinct if you try to approach it from a neutral point of view?
Primordial cultures (like the Aboriginees, native American, Bushmen etc..) consist of small clans or groups of a few dozen individuals up to a few hundred. I remember reading that behavioursits found that humans were able to keep social contacts with about these numbers of others, depending on individual abillities. (Unfortunately I can´t point you in the direction of sources as I don´t have the magazine anymore)
There seems to be som instinct a t work. Now look at how we live.
In a number of primordial gayness is accepted as an individual´s nature.
Look how gays have to fight for their right to live their lives the way it is their inherited natural instinct.
Look at the way humans have to fight an apparent tendency for polygamy.
Enlist a few more of the common social problems and see if there might be some conflict between cultural rules and instinctive behaviour causing the tensions.
When Indian tribes had conflicts to settle there hardly were violent wars, they usualy had much more civilised ways of treating these matters.
See the 500 Nations documentary for that.
You´ll be amazed, comparing our so called advanced culture to theirs, in how many respects we could and actually should learn from them.
The way humans are living nowadays is by no means species-appropriate.
The massculture demands too much of man´s social abilities, while satisfying distinct instincts is tabooed.
I refer to Konrad Lorenz´s quotation who called the allienation of the inhabitant of massculture "Hitzedtod der Nächstenliebe" (Brothely love´s death by heat), which I consider quite a strong metaphor if you remember it was a scientist who created it. You are reduced to a molecule (or an atom) of a society. (Imagine a volume of gas, to which you keep adding gas without providing mor space. The gas molecules will colide harder and harder the more you add, the heat and pressure rise. Refering to the other controversial discussion that is on at the moment: a molecule consists of two atoms. Oxygen for example. The molecules break up at a distinct temperature, leaving single oxgen atoms that will violently connect with anything thy get into contact with. Free radicals. )
This association of gas and masses also works when trying to calculate the behaviour of a large number of paniking people, by the way..
Interestinlgy these ideas are to find in Faust 1, when Faust says about the vilage life "Hier bin ich Mensch, hier darf ich´s sein" (Here I am human, here I may be such!)-putting it as opposing it to city life.
So this feeling is not new and imanent to the industrial culture.
In a discussion on german TV a philosopher quoted an epidemiological investigation that showed societies with large proportions of young men tend to become agressive.
Like germany had in the early 20th century. Like Palestine has today.
Young men that desire recognition yet don´t find it as the places where they could prove themselves by working are occupied and they are overdue. Sing Presley´s "In the Ghetto"!
Here you see footprints of what is human nature.
It´s not all that evil. And it shouldn´t need meaning. It can´t have much of it anyway, most of us are bound to end as fertilizer for the trees in the cemetary. Just have a bit of fun.
Next thing is the question what made an animal that doesn´t run very fast, swims ridiculouly slow, can´t fly, merely jump some 30 feet if at all so succesfull?
The social instinct! Community. And it´s the social instinct that is charity, that is the will to help your neighbour to be happy and your kids to be safe.
A part of human nature. Why else would you think that all the Heartlanders here freak out at the idea of euthanasia? The evidence is at hand, just see it!

itnAklipse wrote:If you were to ask me what is so horrible about modern medicine, i'd say it destroyes and disrupts the cycle of nature.

See boudicca´s reply to that. I´d say TILT.

itnAklipse wrote:Now you can get your flamethrowers out.

I don´t have one, will a hammer be allright, too?
Boy, this one is even longer than version 1.0!

What? No replies? Looks like I´ve killed another thread..

I can reply. My first post on this nice forum.
Leaving philosophy aside, if - as PIB's just written - the parents' point was to give Ashley a better quality of life, then what they've done is right. There's nothing wrong in "playing god" as long as its done to make someone's life better without doing any harm to anyone else at the same time.