This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Peter Heck video - "The Sound of Abortion"

#101kts123Posted 1/31/2013 10:48:20 AM
Let me reiterate this is a more concise format.

Please try to work with me here, since this is difficult for me to articulate.

In the event the brain ceases function, but is capable of recovering. Whatever you want to call that. A brain, which while formed, has "ceased operation." It is "frozen in ice" or "suspended" for a time. It is powered down for a time. I described this as brain dead previously, but apparently there were some extra implications with that word that confused everyone. I am dealing with a fulyl formed brain, that is not "active" for one reason or another.

Which gives the person-hood: Is it the potential for activity that gives a person value, the current arrangement of cells, the potential arrangement of cells, or the activity itself?

We can certainly reach for straws to blur the line. Well they had a living will, or we can assume they would likely have wanted this or that. But this is just muddying the water and avoiding the crux of the issue. What about the cells themselves, in the manner they are arranged, and the activity within, that gives rise to person-hood? It is easy to say "Well while they were easily identified as human, they exercise rights that extend to them in an inanimate form." This is merely extending the rights of a person, to cover that of the cells, during a time in which they are not easily identified as a person.

Could you rephrase what I am trying to say, in order to make clear we're in the same page?
#102kts123Posted 1/31/2013 11:02:45 AM
Iamvegito posted...
From: kts123 | #084
An African American was counted as "half a man" for population purposes.

And now they want women to count as half a man as well, with regards to body sovereignty. Telling a woman what she is to do with her body is analogous to me telling you that you're getting a tattoo of my name across your face.


See.

This is what bugs me about this.

At least the baby killer argument stays true to the heart of the argument.

THIS is just... I don't even.
#103AynRandySavagePosted 1/31/2013 11:41:22 AM
kts123 posted...
What about the cells themselves, in the manner they are arranged, and the activity within, that gives rise to person-hood?


Nothing in itself. The scientific question of how biology gives rise to consciousness and self-awareness isn't the issue. It's enough to know that it does. Personhood is a product of consciousness, self-awareness, and the ability to see oneself as a subject. How we get to that point doesn't matter.



Could you rephrase what I am trying to say, in order to make clear we're in the same page?



It looks to me like you're trying to find some inherent property that is necessary and sufficient to label something as a person
#104kozlo100Posted 1/31/2013 12:27:12 PM
kts123 posted...
Which gives the person-hood: Is it the potential for activity that gives a person value, the current arrangement of cells, the potential arrangement of cells, or the activity itself?


For my two cents, it's the actual activity. There are a crapload of potential pitfalls with defining it so, but I believe they can all be dealt with, and I don't really see a better way to define it.

So, for example, your suspended brain is not a person by this definition. This gets problematic in that this object was a person, and assuming we have the ability to restart the activity, could be that person again. What moral obligation do we have to turn that object into a person? My quick and dirty answer is that we have the same obligation as we do to create new life by procreation.

In the alternative case, imagine your suspended brain, but instead of it having come from a person, we built it from scratch, and we didn't put an on switch in it, so to speak. Defining personhood by the configuration of cells demands that this inanimate object that will not ever be anything other than an inanimate object is a person.

For the potential arrangement of cells, imagining we have the ability to build the brain mentioned above, and we can put an on switch in it, this demands that literally everything, or at least everything that can be used as or converted to raw materials for our brain building machine, is a person.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#105JonWood007Posted 1/31/2013 2:38:08 PM(edited)
kts123 posted...
Let me reiterate this is a more concise format.

Please try to work with me here, since this is difficult for me to articulate.

In the event the brain ceases function, but is capable of recovering. Whatever you want to call that. A brain, which while formed, has "ceased operation." It is "frozen in ice" or "suspended" for a time. It is powered down for a time. I described this as brain dead previously, but apparently there were some extra implications with that word that confused everyone. I am dealing with a fulyl formed brain, that is not "active" for one reason or another.

Which gives the person-hood: Is it the potential for activity that gives a person value, the current arrangement of cells, the potential arrangement of cells, or the activity itself?

We can certainly reach for straws to blur the line. Well they had a living will, or we can assume they would likely have wanted this or that. But this is just muddying the water and avoiding the crux of the issue. What about the cells themselves, in the manner they are arranged, and the activity within, that gives rise to person-hood? It is easy to say "Well while they were easily identified as human, they exercise rights that extend to them in an inanimate form." This is merely extending the rights of a person, to cover that of the cells, during a time in which they are not easily identified as a person.

Could you rephrase what I am trying to say, in order to make clear we're in the same page?


The difference between a brain dead person and a fetus though is that a brain dead person was once conferred those rights, a fetus never had the ability to think. It's a human being "under construction". It will only gain the abilities to become a person, to think, to feel, etc. if we let it go, but at the stages I'm talking about, it's never done so.

A brain dead person, in the sense you describe, has already lived. It has developed. That's the key, development. There's a difference between a developed brain that is damaged, and between a brain that is not developed.

Not only that, but unless we're talking about violinist scenarios (which would have crapload of ethical issues on its own), braindead people don't live off of your body.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#106hunter_gohanPosted 1/31/2013 3:46:33 PM
cyclonekruse posted...
A couple of differences I immediately see is that the dead person probably didn't have a hand in the five patients' issues whereas the mother usually had a part in the pregnancy....


So having sex forfeits the rights over your body then? Someone that broke their leg rock climbing had a part in that issue, should we deny that person medical care to fix it too?

....and the doctor would be taking organs permanently while pregnancy is only 9ish months long. Whether those differences ultimately affect the morality of each act I'm not sure yet.


Yeah from a corpse who is only going to either be buried and eaten by worms or burned and turned to ash(and then possibly be "eaten" by a tree or something). Hell you can't even borrow them for 9 months(who exactly would you give them back to?) to see if you can get another donor in that time.

On a somewhat related note, we could pretty much solve our organ donor problems if it were an opt-out program rather than an opt-in one. Saw it in a TED video.


True. This is actually the only time I've heard a pro-lifers opinion on this subject so far.

"Fr. John Fleming of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, the organization that is leading the campaign against the bill, said, “The dishonesty here is breathtaking.”"

"“But the whole point of ‘deemed consent,’” Fr. Fleming said, “is that the person has not consented, has not said one way or the other what their views are, but the State will take the organs anyway!”"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/wales-considering-deemed-consent-for-organ-donation-plan-slammed-by-pro-lif

All of a sudden consent matters a great deal when it didn't at all when he was wanting to force women, without their consent, to go through with pregnancies. The right to life that this guy think those people had as embryos? No where to be found.

My argument is pretty simple. If a newborn is a person, then a full-term fetus is a person because there's no appreciable difference in them other than location, one in a womb and one not. That's the basis for pre-birth personhood.


In the sense of a sapient being, I'm pretty sure they aren't.

kts123 posted...
People made this same claim with slaves during the slave trade days. An African American was counted as "half a man" for population purposes. Not too pretty, eh?


So having a different amount of melanin in your skin is equivalent to not even having a brain that has developed enough to mediate sensory input?

If we have elevated the fetus as more than cells and tissue, who is to say it isn't merely someone in a deep, developmentally based coma of sorts?

Because their brain hasn't even developed enough to mediate sensory input. Nevermind having at any point been sapient.

In the event the brain ceases function, but is capable of recovering.

You keep going on about this, but the simple fact of the matter is said person is not violating anyone's rights to bodily integrity. We have the luxury of being able to keep him around while violating no ones rights.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#107AynRandySavagePosted 1/31/2013 5:55:04 PM(edited)
My argument is pretty simple. If a newborn is a person, then a full-term fetus is a person because there's no appreciable difference in them other than location, one in a womb and one not. That's the basis for pre-birth personhood.


The only definition of personhood that matters in discussing the legality of abortion is a legal one. And legally, there's nothing to stop us from making newborns persons and fetuses not.
#108Suibom(Topic Creator)Posted 2/5/2013 2:36:17 PM
Just a little update (and dad-bragging)

Our 20w5d baby just had its big ultrasound and...

It's a girl! Kept hiding her face with her tiny little fingers. Heartbeat was good.

Crazy to think we're halfway to the big day!

Even crazier to think that some people would have no issue with aborting that little girl, as if she's a "problem" that needs fixed.
---
"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14
#109ThuggernautzPosted 2/5/2013 2:51:33 PM
Suibom posted...
Just a little update (and dad-bragging)

Our 20w5d baby just had its big ultrasound and...

It's a girl! Kept hiding her face with her tiny little fingers. Heartbeat was good.

Crazy to think we're halfway to the big day!

Even crazier to think that some people would have no issue with aborting that little girl, as if she's a "problem" that needs fixed.


Crazy to think that couples don't have health issues, or that every baby was willingly created by both parents, or that people recognize that there is no way they could raise a child correctly and choose to wait until they can. Not just crazy, but ignorant and arrogant too. Let's hope you don't impart those attributes onto your future child.
#110Faust_8Posted 2/5/2013 2:54:11 PM
Suibom posted...
Just a little update (and dad-bragging)

Our 20w5d baby just had its big ultrasound and...

It's a girl! Kept hiding her face with her tiny little fingers. Heartbeat was good.

Crazy to think we're halfway to the big day!

Even crazier to think that some people would have no issue with aborting that little girl, as if she's a "problem" that needs fixed.


Once again, being pro-choice does NOT mean you have "no issue" with abortions.

Secondly, most people that are pro-choice would much prefer it happen in the first trimester, and even better if it's only weeks after conception instead of months. You say you're halfway so that's roughly 20 weeks, or somewhere around 4-5 months. And no, I'm not a fan of abortions then...but I support the freedom to do it because who knows what the mother's situation could be, it's a very complicated thing. I don't like abortions that late but there can be good reasons to do it then.

And finally, a fetus is only a problem if its unwanted and/or would not receive adequate care; the way you say it, you think pro-choicers say that ALL fetuses are "problems." Since you seem very excited to have this child, how exactly could anyone judge it to be a problem?

Misconceptions, you're chock full of them. If you had more than misconceptions, sweeping statements, and trying to simplify a very complex issue, I'd respect your position more.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while