Translation: "I, Scotsman, was avoiding through procrastination, but rather than take responsibility for that, my behavior, I choose to unjustifiably blame others for my behavior, complete with derogatory ad hominems."
A mother gives birth and the doctors soon notify the couple that their baby's brain is not formed correctly. Though their baby will live if some costly procedures are performed, their baby will never be normal, and will likely live whatever shorter life that person has left confined to a bed, incapable of communicating.
Here are the choices.
1. Have the baby killed immediately.
2. Do nothing, let the baby live and die without heroic measures.
3. Have the expensive surgery, give the baby a fighting chance at the best life possible.
Those are the choices.
Some people will choose option 2. They accept with great sadness the fate assigned to another person. They choose to live and let live, for however long life is, and not intervene.
Some people will choose option 3. They believe it is their parental duty to give their child a fighting chance and live with that and the responsibilities of parenting, no matter what the cost, so they elect to have the surgery, hoping that advancements in science will soon be able to correct the defect.
My questions to you are as follows:
1. What do you imagine would be the thinking of those who would choose option 1?
2. Since option 1 is, by definition, murder, unjustly, with premeditative intent, depriving that person of that person's right to life (the murder weapon -- "euthanizing procedure" -- being, as always irrelevant with regard to justification for murder), how can one sociologically commit murder and get away with it sociologically, what rationalization would they use as justification that they and others could live with?
3. Because the murder of a post-natal person in this scenario is clearly wrong, unjustly depriving that person of that person's right to life, why do you think that the murder of a pre-natal person isn't wrong? (And no, citing varying situations of "because the law allows it", is, of course, an emotional cop out and not an allowable answer here, especially considering that the more recent presentation by science, that the newly conceived is indeed a person, a unique individual human being at that person's earliest stage of being a person, will likely soon motivate repeal of all the ancient archaic "laws" that in some places condone this type of murder.)
4. Isn't it quite possible that the only reason one would choose option 1 for either a pre- or post- natal person is a whole lot less for the supposed benefit of the murdered and a whole lot more for the benefit of the murderers?
