Lawsuit Enters Senate Campaign

The Daily Oklahoman ^ | 09-17-2004 | Carmel Perez Snyder

[Know your rights]

How is limiting family size not a higher end?

Limiting family size is only necessary when a new member of the family would prevent the existing family from obtaining necessary means of survival.

So survival is the only "higher end"?

[wideawake]

So survival is the only "higher end"?

Nothing I said would support such a view.

[codercpc]

Many times a womans tubes are scarred, and that is what causes a tubal pregnancy (the fertilized egg is trapped in the scar tissue unable to travel to the uterus to implant). In this case is was probably assumed if one tube was scared the other one may be to.

If she became pregnant again she has an increased risk of another tubal pregnancy, this is a life threatening condition. So although the tubal ligation was "elective" it was also "preventative". I am sure they did not have time to do a dye test to see if the other tube was in fact blocked (the tubal pregnancy necessitated an immediate operation), and the woman was given the option of having the tubal ligation done at the same time, so she would not have to undergo another surgery at a later date.

This is a common practice, although I agree a written consent should have been attempted.

[Know your rights]

Are survival (of oneself or another) and those ends ordered toward survival the only "higher ends"?

[Mike Bates]

This "lady's" lawsuit was dismissed the first time she brought the action and then she couldn't find a lawyer who would take her case.

Couldn't find a lawyer to take her case? That's one for Robert L. Ripley.

Michael M. Bates: My Side of the Swamp

[wideawake]

Are survival (of oneself or another) and those ends ordered toward survival the only "higher ends"?

They are the ends of the generative faculty. The generative faculty of the individual is ordered to the good of the individual who can choose to exercise or not exercise that faculty.

[Know your rights]

How is limiting family size not a higher end?

Limiting family size is only necessary when a new member of the family would prevent the existing family from obtaining necessary means of survival.

Are survival (of oneself or another) and those ends ordered toward survival the only "higher ends"?

They are the ends of the generative faculty.

You miss my point. You stated that limiting family size is not a "higher end" unless necessary for the existing family's survival, which seems to imply that survival (of oneself or another) and those ends ordered toward survival are the only "higher ends." (If you didn't mean to imply that, then how was your 'survival' statement responsive to my question, " How is limiting family size not a higher end?")

[wideawake]

You stated that limiting family size is not a "higher end" unless necessary for the existing family's survival, which seems to imply that survival (of oneself or another) and those ends ordered toward survival are the only "higher ends."

I meant that purely within the frame of the generative faculty, it does not make sense to procreate a person whose existence will destroy the generative faculty itself and all the fruits of its past procreation.

Clearly the generative faculty must first exist before it achieves its end - the survival of the procreator precedes procreation. Survival is "higher" in that sense.

[Know your rights]

So the moderate realist position is that the destruction of a faculty's ability to achieve its naturally ordered end is violative of that faculty and constitutes a mutilation of the person, unless that destruction is ordered to an end that is higher within the frame of that faculty?

[wideawake]

If we presume that the end of the generative faculty is procreation, the individual in question may be placed in a situation (i.e. uterine cancer) in which the destruction of that faculty may be necessary to save their life.

If this is the case, their death would not only result in the destruction of their generative faculty, it would result also in the destruction of their ability to participate in any ancillary way to the end of procreation.

A person deprived of their generative faculty by extreme necessity is still able to raise the other children they have or to assist others in the care and nurturing of children.

It is better to contribute to the end in a limited way rather than to cease all contribution.

[Know your rights]

Is that a "yes" or a "no"?

[wideawake]

It's a yes.

[Know your rights]

Got it. I can't see the logical necessity for the italicized constraint, nor can I support the conclusion that we must procreate until we're reduced to subsistence living.

[wideawake]

Got it. I can't see the logical necessity for the italicized constraint,

One can choose to use or not use the faculty. There is no need to destroy one's faculty unless their is a supervening necessity. If there is no supervening, such drastic measures are merely a matter of whim.

nor can I support the conclusion that we must procreate until we're reduced to subsistence living.

This conclusion only obtains if one accepts Malthusianism as a realistic construct.

[Know your rights]

There is no need to destroy one's faculty unless their is a supervening necessity. If there is no supervening, such drastic measures are merely a matter of whim.

Yes, and the italized text places on the definition of "supervening necessity" a constraint for which I see no logical necessity.

nor can I support the conclusion that we must procreate until we're reduced to subsistence living.

This conclusion only obtains if one accepts Malthusianism as a realistic construct.

I meant "we" the family, not "we" the race. You yourself acknowledged that there might be cases where a new family member would push the existing family below subsistence.

[Clintonfatigued]

Those 'Rats will stop at nothing to win. Hopefully, the shock value will subside by October and Coburn will regain the lead.