I have to agree with Crystal, in that once someone conceives, he/she is responsible for ensuring that the life of that child is as good as he/she can make it. Yes, men can be just as emotionally affected by a conception as women...I know of one person on this board who experienced fetus-related trauma that negatively impacted his life. Life matters, no matter where it is or who it is inside. I feel this way, knowing that if my wife was ever raped and impregnated, I may have very dangerous emotions regarding that child even though it wasn't its fault. Life is just too precious to debate. However, I feel that there are times when it is morally justified, outside of self-preservation, to end life.
Do I feel like people who are veggies should have the plug pulled on them? Not necessarily. It comes down to what you can prove about their quality of life. It also comes down to the quality of life of their supporters...it's morally wrong, in my opinion, to force family members to spend a huge chunk of personal time and funds on someone who is proven to have no chance of recovery, who sits and does nothing (cannot move/communicate/observe anything), and who really has no meaningful interaction with life. They can measure this on brain scans, so it is scientifically accurate. In that case, I feel it is the family's choice. In that case, the sick person will have no quality of life no matter what, and the family would suffer financially, mentally, emotionally, and in some cases physically (who is picking up this person, possibly a full-sized adult, to give him baths/put him to bed/transport him?).
I believe that terminating a baby's life before or during birth in order to save the mother's life is also a moral option. You must choose one or the other, and the mother and father (hopefully married or partners for life and committed to one another) have a chance to move on, and eventually try again.
My wife works in a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU), and I can tell you that she brings home some very sad, heartbreaking stories of kids who will never have a meaningful existence, but were kept alive because their parents couldn't let them die peacefully at the onset of their conditions. Some people are just meant to die, guys. I don't know if I believe in fate, or God's will, or "what-have-you." I just know that quality of life, to me, does not include a lifetime of either incredible pain or suffering or being half-doped on medications while your family struggles to pay the bills so you can just...exist. Life is not only about existing, it involves meaningful interactions and a chance to become an individual. If those things are denied, quality of life is severely reduced to the point where the end of it becomes a viable option (in that individual's mind). I know I wouldn't want to live like that. I would be scared of death, but living life like that would be miserable, knowing how much of a drain I was on my family and friends, and knowing what little I provided them in return and knowing what little quality my life possessed. In this, I think that medical technology can be used to ascertain what the quality of life will be, and the rest should be left to the individual (or family, if he is incapable of making the decision). I think that is morally acceptable.
One last issue (Mtn's thinking, "Thank God!"): NOLA has a very good point regarding government involvement in the abortion issue. I think of it as I do anything else: can you really stop it? Could anyone stop the manufacture, distribution of alcohol during the Prohibition? Drugs during our current times? No. All it does is lead to increased government control, less safe procedures and practices for those conducting the "illegal" actions, and an underground criminal element that will charge more for a risky operation than a trained doctor would in a sterilized hospital environment. I just see no win here. I am completely in support of zero federal involvement. If given a choice, I will vote for letting the states decide for themselves.
