is gone. But liberals don't pronounce a human being alive when the heart and brain activity starts?
Libs,...natures favorite joke.
Libs,...natures favorite joke.
Pronounced dead once heart stops and brain activity....
- Thread starter Aegon_Targaryen
- Start date
Liberals don't consider any entity to be a human being unless it votes Democratic. At least once per election. Once you understand that, much of the world becomes clear.is gone. But liberals don't pronounce a human being alive when the heart and brain activity starts?
Libs,...natures favorite joke.
It takes more than mere brain activity. It takes more than mere brain activity and human DNA.
You are sufficient proof that brain activity can exist in the absence of sentience.
Let me start by prefacing that I'm on the fence when it comes to intentional abortions. I personally would never have one except in extreme circumstances, but I often wish some people would never reproduce because their offspring stand little to no chance of being productive members of society.
Your analogy is a good one except pro-choicers aren't denying that it's a living thing, they are saying "its living, but who cares, it's not born yet so therefore it is not a person."
Whenever I'm playing devils advocate with a pro-choicer I ask them this, "if you or your wife are on your way to the hospital to give birth to your wanted child and someone punches your wife in the stomach and kills the baby, are you OK if that person only gets charged with simple assault on your wife? Absolutely no punishment for killing the unborn baby?"
Your analogy is a good one except pro-choicers aren't denying that it's a living thing, they are saying "its living, but who cares, it's not born yet so therefore it is not a person."
Whenever I'm playing devils advocate with a pro-choicer I ask them this, "if you or your wife are on your way to the hospital to give birth to your wanted child and someone punches your wife in the stomach and kills the baby, are you OK if that person only gets charged with simple assault on your wife? Absolutely no punishment for killing the unborn baby?"
What dumbass thinks someone is pronounced dead when their heart stops beating?
And yet it takes lack of oxygen to the brain for sufficiently long to damage those regions that are involved in conscious awareness before we are really no longer "there." That's why we can sometimes bring people back from heart death.
The relevant point is that those are regions of the brain and those are the brain functions we look for to see if a person is still there - and those are exactly what a fetus doesn't have. They aren't developed yet and the little bit of neural activity in the precursors of those brain structures aren't even capable of producing the conscious awareness present in a mouse or a goldfish.
That's why abortion isn't murder.
This is all academic, remember AT thinks murder should be legal. For all his jabs at libs, he has a much more lenient position.
It may be academic when debating with Husker, but it isn't for everybody.
The view I outlined is scientifically sound. Many come up with other reasons to object to abortions. Often torturing the language along the way. But let's at least be clear that no fetus - probably not even in the 3rd trimester when it could be viable - has developed cognitively to the point that we are talking about murder of a person.
And, yes, if science ever proves otherwise, I will change my position and will also object to abortion beyond that point. Because, unlike some, I do oppose murder.
If or your wife are on your way to the hospital to give birth to your wanted child and someone punches your wife in the stomach and kills the unborn baby, are you OK if that person only gets charged with simple assault on your wife? Absolutely no punishment for killing the unborn baby?
Do you think your wife would be OK if she carried the fetus only to have someone punch her and take that away from her? But technically the unborn child is not a person so you can't punish someone for killing something that is not a person yet, right? You would just chalk it up to, "well that sucks, but I guess he really didn't kill anything that was really anything so he shouldn't be punished for it."
What's your position on this?
I doubt my position will make anybody happy, but here it is.
In our society for as long as we allow women to exercise choice, the legal status of the fetus should depend on her choice.
So . . .
If she was going to the hospital to give birth, an additional charge or sentencing option above that for harming the woman would be appropriate.
Whereas if the assault occurred while she was on her way to the abortion clinic, you could argue that only the usual charges and sentencing should apply.
I'm texting while driving slowly in town and inadvertently rear-end the vehicle ahead. I get a ticket and pay the damages.
You are doing exactly the same thing and exactly the same thing happens. But in your case the elderly driver of the other car has a heart attack and dies. What should your punishment be?
What if the accident causes the pregnant driver of the car to have a miscarriage?
You are doing exactly the same thing and exactly the same thing happens. But in your case the elderly driver of the other car has a heart attack and dies. What should your punishment be?
What if the accident causes the pregnant driver of the car to have a miscarriage?
I do like your opinion in this example.
We have laws that express the difference between consensual sex and statutory rape. Why not have laws on the books that punish an assault that terminates a pregnancy more severely than just a punch in someone's gut? In one case, we recognize all people are not equal in the way we treat their bodies. Why can't we say the same in the other case?
My opinion on the matter also won't make many happy and would probably infuriate many people. I for one don't think it should be left entirely up to the woman in most cases. In cases where he wanted to have sex with her and she wanted to with him and there is no danger to the woman then I personally think it should be a joint decision. That opinion aside, I agree there should be an additional charge and I would go as far to say murder. That being said, I don't know how you can say one is murder and the other isn't if the unborn child is in the same state-- mental capacity of a goldfish I think you said. Both would have been people.
We do not use the "potentiality" argument. As attractive as it is, nearly everybody rejects it because then you get into problems with wasted embryos, unfertilized ova, and even cloning. Lots of starting points can accurately be said to have the potential to become a person.
You'll notice I avoided using the word "murder" when I gave my opinion on the assaulted pregnant woman example. I wouldn't call it "murder" in either case. But I would allow for the possibility of different charging and sentencing options for the offender depending on whether the fetus was going to be carried to term or aborted.
This isn't just a philosophical question. Most states will charge the perp with murder in that case. In Iowa, as in most other states, there have been cases of manslaughter charges brought against drivers who caused an accident that killed an unborn baby. It just defies rationality that those same states give the mother the right to kill the same unborn baby. Really. I'm not talking about religion or morality or anything like that; I'm just talking about basic common sense.
The view you've outlined is not scientifically sound. Your definition would lump people in a coma or severely retarded (or whatever PC word you'd like to use) as non-persons. The torturing of the language comes from the people arguing a fetus isn't a person. When does one develop cognitively enough to where we decide it's a person? You've argued in the past it could be up to 5 years old (this is Peter Singer's position). This is nothing more than the state/the majority flexing it's muscle at a "best guess" when a fetus/unborn child/baby is a person. Which is nothing different that the state/majority flexing it's muscle, repressing the weak, and declaring Jews or blacks as non-persons.
So, you are conceding we can't prove a fetus isn't a person, which then means we must err on the side of caution and declare a fetus a person. Prove to me a fetus isn't a person and I'm with you. Abort at your pleasure.
It seems that way at first glance. But in my opinion common sense can see the difference.
You know, on a box of Bisquick there is a recipe for biscuits, or dumplings, each call for the exact same thing right up to the point where you apply heat. With the biscuits you put the batter in an oven. The dumplings get put in hot liquid. Same thing, comes out different.
And frankly I'm cool with that. I'm just not cool with them saying it's fine to have an intentional abortion because of this and that, but then turn around and and omit that very same this and that for justification in the flip side. It's seems like many pro choicers are having their cake and eating it to in regards to "this and that".
Nice of you to go from point to point telling me what my position is. It would be even nicer if you could get it right more than once in a blue moon. Not much point in setting you straight again. But for those who may not know, I am perfectly comfortable not terminating toddlers or even late stage fetuses - even though there's no evidence that the are persons. I prefer to err on the side of caution.
What you and people who get similarly hysterical when faced with a rational viewpoint apparently don't understand is that just because there isn't a person there doesn't mean we can or should willy-nilly kill it. It's still living. We don't just kill pets without a care. Why would we do that with a human, even if there is no one home cognitively?
It's a simple principle. A being that has not yet achieved conscious self-awareness isn't a person. A being that had previously achieved personhood but has lost it and has no likelihood of recovering it isn't a person. We let doctors and scientists and moral philosophers weigh in on those things and we try to err on the side of caution.
That seems like a reasonable approach to most who aren't superstitious or letting their emotions trump their reason.
Maybe my emotions are just running away with me again but I'm pretty sure a toddler is a person.
Wow.
Wow.
Well, your position has changed at least a dozen times on the issues, so I have fairly characterized your position, at least as has been your position in prior discussions. Maybe it's changed, again. Since this is a new position where you decide to "err on the side of caution", I'll take credit for influencing your conversion since I've made this argument numerous times in our past discussions on this issue.
LOL to the rest of what you wrote. You are the one that fails to use reason and use emotion to form your argument. It's why you bring up the "superstitious" point, which once again shows your religious bigotry, but has no place in this debate since I've never introduced religion into my argument when determining personhood. You may disagree with my argument but don't be dishonest and claim it's rooted in superstition. For this discussion, it's solely rooted in reason.
Oh, and if you read what I wrote earlier I said, personhood is a legal term, one which doesn't have to be changed but which doesn't change the fact the government should protect the life of the unborn (I cited the example of the eagles egg which the government DOES protect). As you said, since we can't prove a fetus isn't person then we should err on the side of caution. Old humans are persons, young humans are persons, and preborn humans, fetal humans are persons too. All humans are persons.
"It's a simple principle. A being that has not yet achieved conscious self-awareness isn't a person."
It's hardly a simple principle, but it is a deeply flawed one that you are using. You also got it BACKWARDS. A "human being" isn't the broader category and "person" the narrower subset. It's the other way round. Person is the broader category and human being is a subset.
So, if consciousness is the be all to determine personhood, then a person in a coma or sleeping isn't a person. If you argue that they had a history of conscious self-awareness, then you are saying a person born in a coma and at the age of 10 comes out of the coma, this is not a person. By this definition there can be no personal first act, no personal acts without a history of past personal acts. Your reasoning is flawed.
"Which features count as proof of personhood? Why? How do we decide? Who decides? What gives them that right? And how much of each feature is necessary for personhood? And who decides that, and why? Also, all the performance-qualifications adduced for personhood are difficult to measure objectively and with certainty. To use the unclear, not-universally-accepted, hard-to-measure functionalist concept of personhood to decide the sharply controversial issue of who is a person and who may be killed, is to try to clarify the obscure by the more obscure, obscuram per obscurius."
http://catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=3475
As I said before, a person is one with a natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts.
Not quite. With proper care, almost 40% of people survive an episode of cardiac arrest in the field.
is gone. But liberals don't pronounce a human being alive when the heart and brain activity starts?
Libs,...natures favorite joke.
Brain activity doesn't have to be gone to declare someone brain dead. That's an incredibly simplistic viewpoint.
If you want to make an analogy to using EEG brain waves to declare someone "brain dead" and the development of fetal neurological activity, a fetus wouldn't have meaningful cortical function akin to being "alive" on EEG until 20-25 weeks gestational age. The electrical activity that occurs prior to that time is primitive motor neuron and/or brainstem.
How does this definition fit your argument? Doesn't this definition omit fetuses, severely handicapped and people in comas too?
