New Mars Forums

CLARK:  But I will agree with you (to do otherwise is just plain silly), regulation and control is a function of force

*Thanks.

CLARK:  used by society to establish order and maintain boundaries between our individual liberty and rights. What I am advocating does not violate this principle we all readily accept, and I fail to see the value in why you point this out.

*I was simply pointing out the untruth of your having said "regulations and controls aren't force."

CLARK:  But it is the same kind of force that exsists with jay-walking ordinances, smoking bans, saftey restraint rules, free speech rules of conduct, etc. So what's your point?

*There's a tremendous difference between a baby, which is the biological offspring of 2 people and is a human being, versus walking across the road the wrong way or smoldering cigarettes.

ME:  "What if the conception and birth was accidental?  Maybe they don't want the burden of taking care of a child, but they also don't want the child taken from them.

CLARK:  Someone smarter and wiser than I will have to field this question- I honestly don't know what should be done if the parent DOSEN"T WANT a child, but also DOSEN"T WANT to give the child up. What other choices exsist?

*I didn't say they don't want the child.  I said "maybe they don't want the BURDEN of taking care of a child;" in other words, having to meet the demands and challenges of caring for a child wasn't on the agenda, and they aren't looking forward to the burdens of child care, *BUT* they do love the child, have bonded with it, and plan to do their best by the child; so, of course, they will not want the child taken away from them.

ME:  You make such preposterous assumptions.

CLARK:  Really? We hold in US society that crack addicted mothers who trade sexual favors for money make poor parents, we regularly remove the children from their homes to protect the child's welfare, which is all inclusive.

*We're talking about settlers/colonists on Mars, not the USA.  You're diverting again.

CLARK:  Generaly, society has held criminals make bad parents, and we tend to limit their involvement with their own off-spring. Are you suggesting that this is not a wise policy?  I know it is a weak point with this SITUATION- but in both instances we are dealing with a criminal who has displayed no regard for the rule of law, or the welfare of others within society.

*Again:  Children on Mars will be a tough prospect all the way around.  I doubt they will be factor in Marsian life for quite some time; I addressed those issues in a previous post.  And if a couple goofs up and a baby is born, they are to be branded CRIMINALS?  That's going too far.  I doubt Marsians will face troubles with birth rates for a very, very long time.  We're not even sure how the lower Marsian gravity will effect the labor and delivery process, if the lack of our moon and its effect on the tides and women's reproductive cycles will screw up menstrual periods on Mars; then there are the special requirements children on Mars will need.

Lack of population control won't be an issue for a very, very long time. 

--Cindy

Clark:  I am not stating that people should be forced to stop reproducing, I am suggesting that a centralized authority must be able to REGULATE and CONTROL population growth

*Which is forcing people to stop reproducing.  If people are not free to decide for themselves whether they will have a child or not, and regulations and controls are imposed on them, that is force; "regulations and controls" are words which seek to downplay and whitewash the agenda of force. 

Clark:  The baby should also be removed from the parents-

*So who's going to take care of and raise the child then?  And how will you determine WHO gets to take care of the baby in lieu of it being taken from its parents?  And why should the baby be punished by being taken away from the one person it's bonded with the most -- its mother?

Clark:  this would act a deterrence

*This would act as a cause for a riot, is more like it. 

Clark:  becuase why have a baby if you can't raise it

*Who says the parents can't raise it?  Just because a child was conceived and born despite attention to birth control methods?  The only sure birth control method is abstinence.  All forms of birth control, i.e. IUDs, condoms, foams and jellies, diaphragms, etc., do NOT have a 100% guarantee of conception control.  "Nature finds a way" -- babies are occasionally conceived despite the most consistently careful attention to birth control prevention.  This is no basis for claiming "they can't raise it."

--Cindy

CLARK:  Again, how does their individual action diminish the value of their lives?

*How does/did the individual actions of these people [Hitler, Dahmer, and Yates] INCREASE the value of their lives?

CLARK:  They are alive,and what they choose to do is morally reprehensible, it does not somehow disqualify, or somehow reduce the inherent value of life. Either life has value which is absolute, or it dosen't.

*Interesting.  I thought you didn't believe in "absolutes" Clark.  You're asking me to consider the lives of Hitler, Dahmer, and Yates as being equally worthy as, say, the lives of George Washington, Mother Theresa, and Princess Diana.  Sorry, can't do it.

CLARK:  If life dosen't have an absolute value (as you are suggesting now), then there is no need to respect ANY life since any value would be arbitrary. This establishes that the WORTH of a life can be determined- measured. Can it?

*You are taking what I've been say WAY out of context.

ME:  Did they?  You're telling me that ignorant, brainwashed people committing suicide upon command is the same as Settler Williams wanting to  die because she's suffered horrible burns, will run out of pain medications in a week, the next package is a month away, and she can't abidethe thought of being so horribly disfigured on top of the excruciating pain she will suffer for weeks? 

CLARK:  YES! They are exactly the same.

*No, they are not.  Settler Williams makes a personal, private decision based on an incident which has happened to her alone.  It is *her* decision, which *she alone* makes for herself, in the privacy of her mind and by her own will.  No one is telling her to kill herself, she's not been propagandized into believing some altruistic lie that she must sacrifice herself for "the cause" and will obey like a sheep the commands of another to dispose of her life.  There is a difference here -- you just don't want to see it.

CLARK:  You are using your PERSONAL value system to determine which one is acceptable and which one is not.

*I'm using my personal value system in conjunction with common sense.  You are bringing your own personal value system in this discussion as well.

CLARK:  Either the right to die is universal and unabridged,
which means ANY reason that people want to die is justifiable, or it is not. YOU are the one that is stating that the right to die is universal and unabridged- YOU are the one who is in effect CONDONING the action of the "ignorant, brainwashed people". It's actually funny in a way. 

*No, I'm not.  Either you're not comprehending what I'm saying, or you don't want to. 

ME:  I've given you specific situations, i.e. chosing being tortured and burned to death during the Inquisition of the 1500s versus hanging one's self to avoid it, and you didn't answer. 

CLARK:  Actuially, I believe I did. I said I would hang myself as well- but in that instance you describe, I am being murdered anyway- me taking my own life is not an act of suicide, it is an act of murder on the part of those who would soon kill me. If my only option is death becuase SOMEONE else has put me in that situation, and not of my choosing, then it is murder on their part, not mine. I told you then, as I am telling you now, your example does not apply.

*Yes, my example does apply.  You can choose to place yourself at the mercy of others while they torment you to death and get their thrills from it -OR-  you can take your own life into your own hands and die with pride and self-respect, knowing you've cheated them of their desire to degrade and humiliate you, and that your self-induced death has more dignity, less pain, etc. 

CLARK:  You are asking us to see the sense in codifying into law the right to murder oneself as an unalienable and protected right. This measn that police and paramedics would be REQUIRED by law to not interfere with anyone who is trying to kill themselves- in fact the police would be required to prevent anyone from interferring with this right. Imagine a world where police do crowd control while they wait for someone to jump- instead of trying to save them. That's the world you allow with this argument Cindy.

*You're exaggerating.  The Big Medical Corporate Industry bilks insurance companies and private individuals for zillions of dollars to keep suffering people alive and preventing themselves from taking their own lives.  They stand by and watch the cash flowing in, getting rich off the sufferings of others -- is this worse than crowds yelling for someone to jump?  Besides, I DIDN'T say people SHOULDN'T try to be talked out of jumping or killing themselves.  I'm not in favor of people being ENCOURAGED to kill themselves.  I'm simply saying that it is the right of the individual.

CLARK:  How as an individual are you PREVENTED from killing yourself?

ME:  Why should I be prevented from acting upon my own will, when my decision involves only ME?

CLARK:  So now we go back to my previous point- drug laws, alcohol restrictions, prostution laws, food quality laws, saftey laws, standards for almost anything all go out the window. How is this sensible and logical?

*You're running with the argument again.  The discussion started with the right of an individual to die.  People also have the right to be protected from injury and death.

CLARK:  Here is an example for you. We establish the "right to die at ones choosing"- A Parent has a child, which makes them executor of the child until they are 18. The child has a deformity of some sort- maybe a hair lip. The Parent, unable to afford the cost of "fixing" the cosmetic abnormality is worried that their child will have a horrible and painful life. Deciding not to put the child through such obvious agony, she has the child euthanized. All of which would be legal, since the parent is exercising the right of the child- as is the Parent's right. Your thoughts Cindy?

*You're injecting an element into this discuss which doesn't belong here.  I'm not speaking of people deciding death for others -- I'm speaking of the individual's own right to die.

ME:  And you are suggesting that persons be made to suffer rather than trust they have enough brains, awareness, or whatever to make their own  decision.  It's silly.

CLARK:  No, I am in no way suggesting that they be MADE to suffer-

*Yes, indirectly, you are.

CLARK:  I am simply stating that no one in their right mind chooses to die.

*By what standards do you determine "in their right mind"?

CLARK:  If they do choose death, obviously something is "wrong" with them.

*Define "wrong" in this context.  Wrong by what standards -- yours?  The Bible's?  Dear Abby's advice column?  You've said there are no absolutes.  How can it be wrong to you?  And why put the word WRONG in quotation marks, as you have?  Are you unsure you think it's wrong?

I'll give you the last word on this Clark.  I'm of the impression that either you cannot understand my viewpoint, or you don't want to; probably the latter.  You've stated before at the message boards that there are no absolutes (even though I don't recall my ever having said there ARE absolutes), but this doesn't prevent you from then using the word "absolute" to assist you in your argument or to try and undermine the argument of your opponent.  You can't have it both ways, darling.  You also interject new elements into the argument which are not, IMO, related to the discussion at hand.  Perhaps this is a diversionary tactic on your part, I don't know.

I've made my viewpoints clear enough.  Now you can have the last word. 

--Cindy

CLARK:  You point out human monsters, but does that in and of itself somehow diminish the value of life?

*Maybe you should ask their victims that.  Whoops, can't -- their lives were taken forcibly from them by another, against their will.

ME:  I'm not talking about ignorant, uneducated people following the commands of their leaders on a collective basis via collective submission. I'm talking about an INDIVIDUAL making their own DECISION to commit suicide.

CLARK:  Even those "ignorant, uneducated people following the commands" had to make an individual decision to commit suicide.

*Did they?  You're telling me that ignorant, brainwashed people committing suicide upon command is the same as Settler Williams wanting to die because she's suffered horrible burns, will run out of pain medications in a week, the next package is a month away, and she can't abide the thought of being so horribly disfigured on top of the excruciating pain she will suffer for weeks?  I've answered your questions Clark...now answer some of mine, please.  I've given you specific situations, i.e. chosing being tortured and burned to death during the Inquisition of the 1500s versus hanging one's self to avoid it, and you didn't answer.  How would you tell Settler Williams she CANNOT take that cyanide pill, you or Society forbid it, etc., etc.?  You didn't answer that, either.

ME:  If an isolated, propagandized society constantly presses the issue onto its people, they might very well kill themselves en masse for "the cause."  But that's not what I'm talking about; you're taking this out of context.  I'm speaking of individual decision coming about from the individual's desire.

CLARK:  No, you are not talking about that Cindy. You are talking about codifiying the act of killing oneself as a right protected by law.

*And you are talking about legally denying a person their right to die.

CLARK:  How as an individual are you PREVENTED from killing yourself?

*Why should I be prevented from acting upon my own will, when my decision involves only ME?

CLARK:  Maybe you are prevented from killing yourself EASILY, but no one can truly stop you.

*Right.  So what are we arguing about?

CLARK:  You are suggesting that we HELP indiviuals to take their own life. It's silly.

*And you are suggesting that persons be made to suffer rather than trust they have enough brains, awareness, or whatever to make their own decision.  It's silly.

I'm beginning to wonder if you think individuals have any rights whatsoever.

--Cindy