The Right To Life?

ArthurDent

Looks like the state can breath a sigh of relief - no need for constitutional definitions of unborn immediatley - the husband has won the case
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0718/embryo.html

Wonder if there will be a challenge?

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I'm sorry if I've not made myself clear. I thought I had said somewhere above that to describe a fertilised egg as "human life" was to say almost nothing. It is unarguably alive; it is unarguably human life, as opposed to some other species. What I don't accept is that it is a person.

You made yourself quite clear and as I’ve already said on a number of occasions already - my last post pretty much spells out your view, so I don’t know where you feel the confusion is arising.

Personhood, I would argue, develops rather than appearing suddenly and fully "formed".

Please expand as it sounds like a fudge to me.

I know that I will never be sure that a permissible date for abortion is right in all circumstances but I'm prepared to try to face the difficulty. When the time of decision arrives, I'll be arguing for or against some suggested date and voting accordingly if a vote is necessary. What I oppose right now is a near total ban on abortion from conception.

The problem is that you can’t seem to be able to be able to pin down or even suggest parameters for what constitutes a person, so a rational debate is impossible. You feel that we should accept that your definition is in essence correct and that we should simply be discussing the small print - guess again.

People reach difficult moral decisions through discussion and reflection. This can't be labelled "arbitrary" for the purpose of dismissal. There is no other way. The erection of unyielding principles is a soft option leading to cruelty.

But you are neither discussing nor reflecting. You have presented us with a presumption - an embryo is not a person until point X and failed to explain, let alone prove, why it is not a person and what constitutes a person.

And they can be labelled arbitrary if they are indeed arbitrary - and if we need to add in dozens of caveats to our definition of what a person is then we’re realistically only inventing arbitrary definitions of ‘personhood’.

What you are doing is presenting a fuzzy argument that cannot stand up to any examination and calling any examination “the erection of unyielding principles”. We’re not even talking about principles, unyielding or otherwise, but simple logic.

Incidentally, Corinthian, I've never associated courtesy and civility with hiding. I've never seen intellectual dishonesty; I would have no way of knowing it.

That’s quite possible; although I would put it down to self-delusion - like warmongers who hide behind the shield of patriotism and genuinely believe their rhetoric.

Jackie laughlin

Victor,
I can't disagree with you and I think impanlation is ISAW's "person point". I don't mean that in any rude sense; I was searching for a short term rather than write something longer.

I think courtesy and civility are required in all walks of life and particularly in debate, which without them degrades. Have a look at Corinthian's last closing sentence. Today it's delusion; yesterday it was intellectual dishonesty. I'm trying to decide if I should ignore him/her completely or just ignore the jibes.

Corinthian,
I was addressing ISAW when I was clarifying my position on "human life".

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I think courtesy and civility are required in all walks of life and particularly in debate, which without them degrades. Have a look at Corinthian's last closing sentence. Today it's delusion; yesterday it was intellectual dishonesty. I'm trying to decide if I should ignore him/her completely or just ignore the jibes.

It would appear that you are already simply ignoring my arguments and using civility as an excuse, TBH. Whether you actually believe it or are being disingenuous is open to debate (which is why I proffered the alternative of self-delusion), but the end result is not - you are sidestepping numerous and repeated challenges to your arguments.

Would you like to play the “I’m not playing this game anymore” card or address my challenges?

Jackie laughlin

Corinthian,
This isn't a game.

"Disingenuous" is your accusation of the day!

You may not have been satisfied with my responses but I was genuinely trying to engage with you.

I don't mind being questioned and trying to formulate replies but apart from being fed up with your trying to attribute base motives to my postings, I'm also growing weary of never hearing your own view.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

You may not have been satisfied with my responses but I was genuinely trying to engage with you.

You’re genuinely talking about trying to engage with me, but I’m not convinced you actually are trying to engage the discussion. Again I would ask to respond to my above challenges rather than talking about responding.

I don't mind being questioned and trying to formulate replies but apart from being fed up with your trying to attribute base motives to my postings, I'm also growing weary of never hearing your own view.

I’ve already said I don’t really have a particular stance on the subject, so please don’t use that as another excuse not to respond to my above challenges. I can happily respect either pro-life or pro-choice stances, as long as they have been logically arrived at - which also means that I can have little respect for either pro-life or pro-choice stances that have been arrived at through irrational, subjective and often idiotic logic.

I believe your reason is flawed and grounded in a number of fuzzy presumptions that you’ve never properly questioned, hence my challenges several pages ago in this discussion. However, rather than respond to these you have repeatedly sidestepped them - initially by simply being evasive and subsequently by using ‘courtesy’ and now my own ‘lack’ of views as excuses not to do so.

So, to coin a rather direct phrase; are you going to shìt or get off the pot?

Jackie laughlin

Corinthian,
I'm telling you the truth about my approach here. I've no idea why you won't accept my efforts at face value. Is "dishonesty" your latest insult? It was only implied, so I'm not completely certain.

You have no particular stance on this subject and you've no time for "stances that have been arrived at through irrational, subjective and often idiotic logic". Then I take it you see your role here as a guardian or guarantor or police officer or enforcer of good argument.

The Corinthian

Do you have any intention of addressing the challenges to your arguments that I posed or are you simply going to continue giving yourself excuses to sidestep them?

Jackie laughlin

Corinthian,
I have done so. Clearly you don't like the replies, or don't understand them, or find that they don't conform to your limited notions of rationality and/or logic, or find that they somehow offend your strange ban on "subjectivity".

At first I thought that you were simply rude but that you had some substance. I was wrong. You've read a litlle philosophy and plundered enough to impress at a superficial level but you are not competent to cope with routine political debate.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I have done so. Clearly you don't like the replies, or don't understand them, or find that they don't conform to your limited notions of rationality and/or logic, or find that they somehow offend your strange ban on "subjectivity".

You’ve made no attempt to address the points. Please do not make any pretence that you did.

At first I thought that you were simply rude but that you had some substance. I was wrong. You've read a litlle philosophy and plundered enough to impress at a superficial level but you are not competent to cope with routine political debate.

Heh. The irony of hiding behind courtesy to avoid responding to challenges and then coming out with this tirade is pretty underwhelming.

You’ve got off the pot in the end. Though you might.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

It would appear that you are already simply ignoring my arguments and using civility as an excuse, TBH.

Do you actually object to his position, or do you just object to the fact that you believe he has not considered his position to a level you would be satisfied with?

He has already stated that he believes that the important bit of a developing human life is not that it is alive, but that it is a human person, and that personhood develops in a feotus. Jackie has not defined to him what definition of "person" he uses, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind if you actually stopped the torrent of attacks and just asked him a simple question, such as "How do you, personally, define 'person'?"

Personally I hold similar beliefs, I believe the a human life, by itself, is of no great significance, it is the conscious thoughts of a person that are the important factor, and that conscious thought cannot develop in a feotus that has yet to develop a nervous system, spinal system or brain. Therefore I believe that early abortions, or the termination of frozen embroys, is a perfectly acceptable procedure, as they do not possess the important characteristics of human life to which rights are assigned.

samb

Well said Wicknight. To me Corinthian is just trying to bully Jackie when is position was expressed in a manner only ambiguous to the most pedantic of pedants.

Jackie ''Personhood, I would argue, develops rather than appearing suddenly and fully "formed". I know that I will never be sure that a permissible date for abortion is right in all circumstances but I'm prepared to try to face the difficulty. When the time of decision arrives, I'll be arguing for or against some suggested date and voting accordingly if a vote is necessary. What I oppose right now is a near total ban on abortion from conception''

Any date you impose will be arbitrary therefore, so we must choose the most humane time to allow abortion or not. Clear

scotusone

if personhood is the result of concsious thought does that mean that when comatose we cease to be persons ?

when we sleep are we persons ?

since thought rather than simple ideas is considered to be contingent on langauge does that mean that pre langauge infants are not persons?

since ferral children on first re integration into human society may not display congative activity that is on a level that is peculiarly human are they not persons?

since chimpanzees have shown an ability to develop language and cognative skills similar to a 4 year old human are they persons?

if they are persons , but those chimps who are untrained show no such cognative abilities are they non persons? is person therefore the result not of a innate characteristic but of taught skills ?

are suffers from alzheimers persons?

since personhood is contingent not on humanity but a process that occurs in some humans it therefore has a begining. i suggest that this means it also has an end .
when do persons cease to be persons ?


is personhood transitory in nature or once achieved is it fixed?
if the latter , why ?

or is it that we speak of the comatose person of being potentiallly conscious ?
if so , in what does his potentiality qalitatively and subtantively differ from the potentiality of the pre-person human ?

samb

scotusone wrote:

if personhood is the result of concsious thought does that mean that when comatose we cease to be persons ?

when we sleep are we persons ?

since thought rather than simple ideas is considered to be contingent on langauge does that mean that pre langauge infants are not persons?

since ferral children on first re integration into human society may not display congative activity that is on a level that is peculiarly human are they not persons?

since chimpanzees have shown an ability to develop language and cognative skills similar to a 4 year old human are they persons?

if they are persons , but those chimps who are untrained show no such cognative abilities are they non persons? is person therefore the result not of a innate characteristic but of taught skills ?

are suffers from alzheimers persons?

since personhood is contingent not on humanity but a process that occurs in some humans it therefore has a begining. i suggest that this means it also has an end .
when do persons cease to be persons ?


is personhood transitory in nature or once achieved is it fixed?
if the latter , why ?

or is it that we speak of the comatose person of being potentiallly conscious ?
if so , in what does his potentiality qalitatively and subtantively differ from the potentiality of the pre-person human ?

Very interesting. I think that this demonstrate the fallacy of defining ''human being'' or ''person'' as something definite that should have rights above all other beings. I will not attempt to give a concrete view on each of the examples above (at least not now) but with regard animals such as Chimanzees that are clearly feeling emotional beings comparable with humans I think that we should definetly give them rights similar to children. we don't let children make thier own decisions but we protect them from abuse.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Do you actually object to his position, or do you just object to the fact that you believe he has not considered his position to a level you would be satisfied with?

If you bother to read two posts up, I’ve answered that.

He has already stated that he believes that the important bit of a developing human life is not that it is alive, but that it is a human person, and that personhood develops in a feotus. Jackie has not defined to him what definition of "person" he uses, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind if you actually stopped the torrent of attacks and just asked him a simple question, such as "How do you, personally, define 'person'?"

Actually I asked him several pages ago. At first he used nature as a metre, then I questioned this and he sidestepped the question. I went further and asked how would he define a person and he sidestepped this also.

When I pressed him he began to change the subject to my lack of courtesy and then my own apparent lack of views. The “torrent of attacks” you see now is simply my repeating the same request so that he cannot sidestep it.

If you choose to read though the thread, you will find all of this.

Personally I hold similar beliefs, I believe the a human life, by itself, is of no great significance, it is the conscious thoughts of a person that are the important factor, and that conscious thought cannot develop in a feotus that has yet to develop a nervous system, spinal system or brain. Therefore I believe that early abortions, or the termination of frozen embroys, is a perfectly acceptable procedure, as they do not possess the important characteristics of human life to which rights are assigned.

Then should we euthanase the severely mentally handicapped as they fail your same criteria?

And here is were we begin seeing an endless list of caveats.

samb wrote:

To me Corinthian is just trying to bully Jackie when is position was expressed in a manner only ambiguous to the most pedantic of pedants.

So for you he was not being ambiguous and then you come out with...

Jackie ''Personhood, I would argue, develops rather than appearing suddenly and fully "formed". I know that I will never be sure that a permissible date for abortion is right in all circumstances but I'm prepared to try to face the difficulty. When the time of decision arrives, I'll be arguing for or against some suggested date and voting accordingly if a vote is necessary. What I oppose right now is a near total ban on abortion from conception''

All you’re saying is you don’t know at what point it becomes a person, and it’s really complicated, but you’ll know when the time is right. You can’t get much more ambiguous than this TBH. For lack of another term, it is complete ****.

Any date you impose will be arbitrary therefore, so we must choose the most humane time to allow abortion or not. Clear

I’ve repeatedly asked why personhood develops and by what criteria it is defined. And if you can’t or don’t want to actually do that, then of course your date will be arbitrary.

Why don’t you make it random too, for fun?

Zombrex

scotusone wrote:

if personhood is the result of concsious thought does that mean that when comatose we cease to be persons ?

When brain dead we cease to be persons, which is the current law as it stands.

It is perfectly acceptable in most countries turn off ventalation equipment if doctors have determined the person is legally brain dead.

scotusone wrote:

when we sleep are we persons ?

You still have consciousness when you are asleep. Your brain does not shut down for 8 hours, it simply moves into a different state.

scotusone wrote:

since thought rather than simple ideas is considered to be contingent on langauge does that mean that pre langauge infants are not persons?

Pre-language infants are conscious. Pre-born children are conscious. I don't know when consciousness develops, but I would imagine it is some time after the brain has developed.

I don't remember mentioning language at all. Organised though (which is not the same as consciousness) used to be considered dependent on language, though I think the theory is being re-evaluated at the moment. Neither of which is very important to my point, though interesting.

scotusone wrote:

since ferral children on first re integration into human society may not display congative activity that is on a level that is peculiarly human are they not persons?

Don't remember mentioning congative activity level either (I assume you mean intelligence)

You are going to be here a while if you want to explain how ferral children are not conscious, since consciousness seems to be a property of the brain, not something that is learnt.

scotusone wrote:

since chimpanzees have shown an ability to develop language and cognative skills similar to a 4 year old human are they persons?

That is what some argue. I certainly think should be examining the question. We have always assumed we are the only creatures on Earth to possess consciousness. But we don't really know this, and evidence is being to suggest otherwise.

scotusone wrote:

is person therefore the result not of a innate characteristic but of taught skills ?

No. Consciousness is a characteristic of the human (and possibly others) brain. Learning has little to do with it.

scotusone wrote:

are suffers from alzheimers persons?

A person suffering from alzheimers is possesses consciousness until the brain beings to start shutting down.

scotusone wrote:

when do persons cease to be persons ?

When their brain dies, under the legal defintion of "brain dead"

scotusone wrote:

or is it that we speak of the comatose person of being potentiallly conscious ?
if so , in what does his potentiality qalitatively and subtantively differ from the potentiality of the pre-person human ?

That is a good question.

The argument that, left alone, a feotus will develop into a human "person" is a strong one. My response to it would be that the feotus has never been conscious, so really does not know what it is missing, where as with a person the consciousness that has developed is then destroyed.

So it is not that the coma patient may in the future come out of the coma. They are not developing a new consciouness by doing so, they are simply restoring the previous one. It is the fact that they have a pre-existing consciousness is the reason you don't just Mr Burns style pull the plug. A collection of stem cells, or a newly fertalised egg has no consciousness, and won't for a while. Therefore nothing is being lost.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Then should we euthanase the severely mentally handicapped as they fail your same criteria?

Why do people keep asking this :rolleyes:

A "severly mentally handicapped" person most likely possess consciousness. By most likely I mean I've no reason to believe they don't. Do you have any reason to believe they don't?

And even if they don't, why would you euthanase them. I've two gold fish that I very much doubt are conscious beings, but they doesn't mean I just kill them for the hell of it.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Why do people keep asking this :rolleyes:

Because it’s relevant and the respondents generally don’t like answering it.

A "severly mentally handicapped" person most likely possess consciousness.

Actually in many cases they do not possess consciousness or self-awareness. Some cases will be as extreme that the individual will be in a near vegetative state. Others will possess a level little more than your goldfish.

By most likely I mean I've no reason to believe they don't. Do you have any reason to believe they don't?

Hold on. You’re willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but not a foetus? How do you reconcile that double standard?

And even if they don't, why would you euthanase them. I've two gold fish that I very much doubt are conscious beings, but they doesn't mean I just kill them for the hell of it.

But the issue is not whether you would, but if you could (my mistake on the wording of the question)?

You’ve given a definition of personhood based upon consciousness or self-awareness, by that logic if one fails those criteria then they should not be considered persons and thus one may terminate them for whatever reason.

So if you found yourself stuck with a severely handicapped relative (for whatever reason), who was no longer (or perhaps never was) conscious or self-aware, and they were an economic drain, then you would be entirely in your rights to euthanise them.

Jackie laughlin

Corinthian,
You came close to insight there and then ruined it with your last comment.

I've struggled for many years with the question of personhood and what the shared characteristics might be which attract equal respect. It's not amenable to the easy answers you seek. The struggle to understand has implications beyond abortion, going into euthanasia, the treatment of people with disabilities, even how we should relate to animals.

It is a fact of life that we must make decisions without certainty. That doesn't mean that we are acting irrationally.

I have both loved a dog and yet struggled to find any shared feeling with a severly disabled person. (The "P" word was used intentionally.) Such realisations are distressing but typical of the human experience and certainly rational.

I really, really don't want to go into it here but I have had to make a life or death judgement call for a family member. I went pro-life. I regretted that decision later because of the suffering I caused. I regret it still. I draw comfort from the fact that I tried to do my best but if I learned something, it was that the pro-life choice is seductively easy; no one criticises you afterwards. However, you may have a troubled conscience when faced with a dreadful outcome.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

You came close to insight there and then ruined it with your last comment.

Please condescend to someone else.

I've struggled for many years with the question of personhood and what the shared characteristics might be which attract equal respect. It's not amenable to the easy answers you seek. The struggle to understand has implications beyond abortion, going into euthanasia, the treatment of people with disabilities, even how we should relate to animals.

It is a fact of life that we must make decisions without certainty. That doesn't mean that we are acting irrationally.

Certainly, but you have gone a step further and are holding up ignorance as a virtue. It goes even beyond the simple uncertainty of whither someone (or thing) may be considered a person or not as you don’t even attempt to define what would make them a person.

What you are left with is a doctrine of deciding on a case-by-case basis with no real guidelines or principles - essentially making it up as you go along.

I have both loved a dog and yet struggled to find any shared feeling with a severly disabled person. (The "P" word was used intentionally.) Such realisations are distressing but typical of the human experience and certainly rational.

I really, really don't want to go into it here but I have had to make a life or death judgement call for a family member. I went pro-life. I regretted that decision later because of the suffering I caused. I regret it still. I draw comfort from the fact that I tried to do my best but if I learned something, it was that the pro-life choice is seductively easy; no one criticises you afterwards. However, you may have a troubled conscience when faced with a dreadful outcome.

I appreciate your personal experiences but you still have not answered my challenges.

It has been my observation that many who use the “it’s not a human/person” argument are really putting forward a de facto utilitarian position. Even in your above experience you regret how your actions failed to maximise utility or happiness for you and those around you. And TBH, a utilitarian argument can be perfectly reasonable and logical.

However, it has also been my observation that many who use the “it’s not a human/person” argument really do so because they don’t like the idea of utilitarianism. So they create this vague definition of personhood that rarely stands up to examination and often requires the most arbitrary and ridiculous collection of caveats to function.

We live in a Society predicated on a Judeo-Christian moral framework, from which we cannot ‘kill the innocent’, and as a utilitarian approach does not consider this beyond the greater good it leaves us with a bad taste in our mouths precisely because this is the antithesis of what we were brought up to believe. And so we invent a new definition of humanity where we are no longer ‘killing an innocent’ and so our imprinted Judeo-Christian morality is sated.

In short, you’re trying to have your cake and eat it.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Because it’s relevant and the respondents generally don’t like answering it.

Its only relivent if you believe mentally disabled people are not conscious beings, which I'm not sure anyone here does.

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually in many cases they do not possess consciousness or self-awareness.

I'm not sure thats true.

The Corinthian wrote:

Some cases will be as extreme that the individual will be in a near vegetative state. Others will possess a level little more than your goldfish.

Being in a psv is being cortaily dead, that is the different than simply being mentally disabled. You are getting into a whole level of discussion here that I would be happy to go into, but it is not as simply as stating mentally disabled people aren't conscious so lets kill them ....

The Corinthian wrote:

Hold on. You’re willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but not a foetus? How do you reconcile that double standard?

Because a foetus doesn't have a brain, spinal cord or nervous system. At least not early term foetuses.

Mentally disabled person do. The vast majority of mentally disabled people are not in a PVS, or anything close to that. They are fully sentient beings. If you wish to discuss the tiny minority that are in PVS thats fine, but I'm weary to have that thrown back into my face as suggesting we should gas mentally disabled people, or other such nonsense.

The Corinthian wrote:

But the issue is not whether you would, but if you could (my mistake on the wording of the question)?

Fair enough, I was responding to the "Then should we euthanase the severely mentally handicapped" ... even if we determine that a very mentally disabled person is in a PVS, or is not sentient, or for all effective purposes brain dead, that is not a reason to euthanaise him/her.

Being in a PVS, or even brain dead, is not the same as being a collection of cells. You are missing the important fact that consciousness had been created.

The Corinthian wrote:

You’ve given a definition of personhood based upon consciousness or self-awareness, by that logic if one fails those criteria then they should not be considered persons and thus one may terminate them for whatever reason.

No.

Can you walk up to a cow in a field and blow its head off for "whatever reason"?

And people do "fail those criteria" all the time, and are taken off life support systems and let die. This is acceptable response to server brain damage.

The Corinthian wrote:

So if you found yourself stuck with a severely handicapped relative (for whatever reason), who was no longer (or perhaps never was) conscious or self-aware, and they were an economic drain, then you would be entirely in your rights to euthanise them.

Its not as simple as that, as I'm sure you are actually aware.

For a start, very few people are born in a PVS. In fact I've never heard of anyone being born in a PVS and surviving, I would imagine they would die soon after birth.

So you are talking about people who have entered into a PVS. Since that is the case their will and wishes come into play. Or the will and wishes of the guardian.

This is going into a long side topic discussion, which I'm happy to do, if you wish. But to make the point, I would say this - Can you do what ever you wish with a persons body or grave after they have died?

Obviously not, despite the fact that they are definiately not a person anymore. You are assuming that once a person is no longer a "person" they some how loose all rights. That isn't true. Even dead people still have rights that must be respected.

So your inital position, that once someone is no longer a person they lose all rights, is flawed, which is making this discussion rather strained. Its hard to argue my position within the frame work of yours.

Jackie laughlin

Corinthian,
Moral arguments cannot usually be reduced to principles and/or seeking to categorise statements as belonging to a particular strand of philosophy.

We develop and agree guidelines to try to avoid deciding on a case by case basis. The guideline are best developed discursively. (Perhaps in all cases they can only be developed discursively.) Those involved would be aware of their limitations, lack of certain knowledge, and the liklihood that the guidelines would be changed in the light of either scientific discovery or the development of different or more compelling arguments.

You seem pre-occupied with Judeo-Christian thought and its rivals. We are all shaped by history and our own experience; we are all ideological subjects. (Yes, I realise that is essentially Marxist.) However, that imprisons only those among us unfortunate enough not to have been exposed to critical thinking. (No, that was not a sideswipe at you.)

As you continually say, you see your role in this and possibly other debates as some sort of neutral expert who doesn't have a view one way or the other but tries to make argument conform to your very restricted view of rationality. I accept neither your restrictions nor your role.

Having said all this, thank you for your kind reaction to my personal experience.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Its only relivent if you believe mentally disabled people are not conscious beings, which I'm not sure anyone here does.

Back that up, or at least back up how they can be ‘conscious’ and a foetus cannot. There are plenty of cases where the severely mentally handicapped are plainly not self aware or even aware.

I'm not sure thats true.

Again, back that up.

Being in a psv is being cortaily dead, that is the different than simply being mentally disabled.

I said near vegetative state, which does not always mean brain death, such as in the case of acute encephalitis.

You are getting into a whole level of discussion here that I would be happy to go into, but it is not as simply as stating mentally disabled people aren't conscious so lets kill them ....

Why not? You set the criteria. So follow it.

Because a foetus doesn't have a brain, spinal cord or nervous system. At least not early term foetuses.

Actually it does within eight weeks.

Mentally disabled person do. The vast majority of mentally disabled people are not in a PVS, or anything close to that. They are fully sentient beings. If you wish to discuss the tiny minority that are in PVS thats fine, but I'm weary to have that thrown back into my face as suggesting we should gas mentally disabled people, or other such nonsense.

If sentience is your ownly criteria then a foetus is more than capable of feel or perceive very early on. Comatose (but not brain dead) patients are not.

If you meant sapience or self-awareness then the reality is many severely mentally handicapped individuals do not fall into this category any more than foeti.

Fair enough, I was responding to the "Then should we euthanase the severely mentally handicapped" ... even if we determine that a very mentally disabled person is in a PVS, or is not sentient, or for all effective purposes brain dead, that is not a reason to euthanaise him/her.

Being in a PVS, or even brain dead, is not the same as being a collection of cells. You are missing the important fact that consciousness had been created.

Enter the first arbitrary caveat. This is where the “it’s not a person” argument begins to fall apart as we begin to hear the “but that’s different because [insert new reason]”.

Can you walk up to a cow in a field and blow its head off for "whatever reason"?

If you own it, essentially yes. Certainly there is legislation that forbids unnecessary cruelty, but ironically ‘blowing off’ a cows head is not all that far removed to what does happen to them in abattoirs.

And people do "fail those criteria" all the time, and are taken off life support systems and let die. This is acceptable response to server brain damage.

Hold on, don’t get confused, they’re not people by your own definition, remember?

For a start, very few people are born in a PVS. In fact I've never heard of anyone being born in a PVS and surviving, I would imagine they would die soon after birth.

You would imagine..? Are you saying it never happens or that it’s so rare that we can ignore it? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

So you are talking about people who have entered into a PVS. Since that is the case their will and wishes come into play. Or the will and wishes of the guardian.

Why? They’re not conscious/self-aware. They’re not persons. It’s entirely the choice of the owner or guardian.

This is going into a long side topic discussion, which I'm happy to do, if you wish. But to make the point, I would say this - Can you do what ever you wish with a persons body or grave after they have died?

We’re not asking what is legal or not, but by your logic the answer is yes - whoever inherited the remains can do whatever they wish with them.

Obviously not, despite the fact that they are definiately not a person anymore. You are assuming that once a person is no longer a "person" they some how loose all rights. That isn't true. Even dead people still have rights that must be respected.

Actually, even legally, this is not true. You don’t actually have to follow the last wishes of a dead person. Happens all the time with relatives who will disagree or simply not want to spend on the requested means of disposal.

A classic example is with more traditional Roman Catholic families that will refuse to carry out cremations even if it was the wish of the deceased.

So your inital position, that once someone is no longer a person they lose all rights, is flawed, which is making this discussion rather strained. Its hard to argue my position within the frame work of yours.

You’ve failed to argue it though as all of your rebuttals are dependant on either false information or arbitrary caveats.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Moral arguments cannot usually be reduced to principles and/or seeking to categorise statements as belonging to a particular strand of philosophy.

Neither can they be made up as we go along as you advocate.

We develop and agree guidelines to try to avoid deciding on a case by case basis. The guideline are best developed discursively. (Perhaps in all cases they can only be developed discursively.) Those involved would be aware of their limitations, lack of certain knowledge, and the liklihood that the guidelines would be changed in the light of either scientific discovery or the development of different or more compelling arguments.

And I am still awaiting those guidelines from you. How many times do I have to ask?

You seem pre-occupied with Judeo-Christian thought and its rivals.

No, if you read what I wrote, I suggested that you are pre-occupied with Judeo-Christian thought and its rivals. I’ve already stated that I can respect any argument as long as it is rationally arrived at.

As you continually say, you see your role in this and possibly other debates as some sort of neutral expert who doesn't have a view one way or the other but tries to make argument conform to your very restricted view of rationality. I accept neither your restrictions nor your role.

Given your continued lack of response to my challenges to your arguments, I’d figured that out much out. TBH, you feel it is a very restricted view of rationality simply because it does not allow you to arrive at the conclusion you want.

So, once more for the cheap seats at the back - will you respond to them? How do you define a person? Are you willing to allow that definition to be tested? Or are you going to continue sidestepping this challenge indefinitely?

Jackie laughlin

Wicknight,
You'll find Corinthian unwilling to argue or incapable of argument. Sorry, that's not strictly true. His/her approach to argument is entirely destructive. That approach has an honourable place of course but it is reasonable to expect a counter argument. You will not get that; you are dealing with someone who wants to define reason, logic and what constitutes a good argument. Satisfied that he/she knows this, he/she will then slot into the role of arbiter. Apart from a tendency to abuse, it's harmless once you see through it.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Back that up, or at least back up how they can be ‘conscious’ and a foetus cannot. There are plenty of cases where the severely mentally handicapped are plainly not self aware or even aware.

TC you are the one talking about gassing mentally disabled people, you back up the argument that, despite the fact that they have developed human brains, they are not actually have consciousness or sentient. I choose to air on the side of caution when it comes to humans with brain activity, even limited brain activity, since it is very hard for modern science to tell where consciousness takes place in the brain and at what level.

My argument about the foetus (before a certain age) is that it doesn't have a brain, nervous system or spinal cord to start with, so cannot have consciousness or be sentient, since they don't have any of the organs needed for this. I can certainly back this up.

You are the one who claimed that we can know mentally disabled people do know possess consciousness. You back that up.

The Corinthian wrote:

Again, back that up.

I can't back up a negative. I've never heard of a functioning brain dead, or PVS mentally disabled person who was born that way. You are just going to have to trust me that I'm not lying. Show me one who has and I will consider the moral dillema around them, despite the fact that this is a bit off topic.

The Corinthian wrote:

I said near vegetative state, which does not always mean brain death, such as in the case of acute encephalitis.

That is true, PSV is not the same as brain death. I'm not quite sure what you mean by near vegetative state, if someone is near a vegetative state then they are not in a vegetative state?

The Corinthian wrote:

Why not? You set the criteria. So follow it.

Because other rights come into play.

Human beings do not possess simply "kill, don't kill" rights. As I said, even a dead person has certain rights still applied to them. Even if a person is in a PVS that doesn't mean you can kill them if you feel like it. A whole other set of rights and responsibility comes into play. You are attempting to simplify down a very complex issue to a one sentence sound bite.

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually it does within eight weeks.

True, which is why this particular opinion of mine only holds for feotuses earlier than eight weeks. Other arguments come into play after that, such as a persons right to refuse to support another human with invasion of their bodily privacy, which as I said I would be happy to discuss but are also rather off topic.

The Corinthian wrote:

If sentience is your ownly criteria then a foetus is more than capable of feel or perceive very early on. Comatose (but not brain dead) patients are not.

Not quite sure how you define "very early on" .. this discussion is about embroys. Are you claiming that frozen embroys are possess a brain, nervous system or even consciousness?

The Corinthian wrote:

If you meant sapience or self-awareness then the reality is many severely mentally handicapped individuals do not fall into this category any more than foeti.

Obvious self-awareness isn't the only requirement for consciousness, but even if it were I'm not quite sure how you could know a mentally handicapped person isn't self-aware. If they fail to pass the tests fully developed humans pass, that might just mean they are no good at the tests.

The Corinthian wrote:

Enter the first arbitrary caveat. This is where the “it’s not a person” argument begins to fall apart as we begin to hear the “but that’s different because [insert new reason]”.

You saying by the very fact I've argued a bit more complex position that A is a person, B is not, my position is therefore invalid.

This is an incredible complex issue TC. The more complex my argument is the more valid it is, not the other way around. I have never claimed that a feotus and a mentally handicapped person are the equivelent, you did, and then expected me to argue this position.

The Corinthian wrote:

Hold on, don’t get confused, they’re not people by your own definition, remember?

That is why it is an acceptable act.

The Corinthian wrote:

You would imagine..? Are you saying it never happens or that it’s so rare that we can ignore it?

I'm saying I've no knowledge of it happening. Do you?

I can make up theoretical positions too (what about the person who is brain dead but still consciousness and walking around?!), but I fail to see how it helps the discussion.

The Corinthian wrote:

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Quite :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote:

Why? They’re not conscious/self-aware. They’re not persons. It’s entirely the choice of the owner or guardian.

Why do their wishes come into play? ... sigh ... ok ...

I believe, as do most people, that a person has the right to decide what happens to them after they die, or if they are placed in a position of PSV or brain death. I'm not quite sure how to explain the moral and ethical justifications for this in a simple paragraphy, but it is out of respect for the memory of the person that their final wishes be followed.

The Corinthian wrote:

We’re not asking what is legal or not, but by your logic the answer is yes - whoever inherited the remains can do whatever they wish with them.

Thats not true, and I've never stated that. I'm not even sure how you would even draw that mis-informed idea from my posts.

First you claim I am justifying killing mentally disabled people, next I'm claiming that we should not respect the rights of the dead.

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually, even legally, this is not true. You don’t actually have to follow the last wishes of a dead person.

AFAIK a solicetor is legally required to carry out, to the best of his ability, the wishes of a deceased persons will.

The Corinthian wrote:

Happens all the time with relatives who will disagree or simply not want to spend on the requested means of disposal.

That is a different issue (god you like throwing in completely unrelated issues to muddy the waters doin't you). A dead person has no more legal right to force someone to do something than a living person.

The Corinthian wrote:

A classic example is with more traditional Roman Catholic families that will refuse to carry out cremations even if it was the wish of the deceased.

If the person has stated in the will that they wish to be cremated that is actually illegal. But then again someone has to be around to protect the rights of a dead person. There is a differents between having no rights, and having no one around to protect your rights.

All of which is going way off topic

The Corinthian wrote:

You’ve failed to argue it though as all of your rebuttals are dependant on either false information or arbitrary caveats.

You are claiming a dead person has no rights. That is incorrect. I'm not even sure I need to bother arguing that, as very basic and simple understanding of any western legal system would show that it is incorrect.

Zombrex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Wicknight,
You'll find Corinthian unwilling to argue or incapable of argument.

Right now he is claiming I've failed to demonstrate that mentally handicapped people can possess consciouness (even though the original claim by him was that they can't) or that dead people still have certain rights after they die. I suppose I can attempt to explain such common knowledge, but I would also point out, none of this is particularly relivent to my original point.

oscarBravo

Jackie laughlin and Wicknight: discussing The Corinthian's debating style is way off-topic for this thread, and in some cases coming dangerously close to breaking the rules. Stop it now. Thanks.

Zombrex

oscarBravo wrote:

Jackie laughlin and Wicknight: discussing The Corinthian's debating style is way off-topic for this thread, and in some cases coming dangerously close to breaking the rules. Stop it now. Thanks.

Apologies. I've edited my post

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

TC you are the one talking about gassing mentally disabled people, you back up the argument that, despite the fact that they have developed human brains, they are not actually have consciousness or sentient. I choose to air on the side of caution when it comes to humans with brain activity, even limited brain activity, since it is very hard for modern science to tell where consciousness takes place in the brain and at what level.

Fair enough that we err on the side of caution, yet you are willing to do so in the case of the mentally handicapped, but not foetuses?

You are the one who claimed that we can know mentally disabled people do know possess consciousness. You back that up.

I already did, one example I gave was acute encephalitis. As for self-awareness (which I also mentioned), this is not uncommon in severely mentally handicapped as their I.Q.s are simply too low for anything more than basic (on the same level as an animal) self-awareness.

I can't back up a negative. I've never heard of a functioning brain dead, or PVS mentally disabled person who was born that way. You are just going to have to trust me that I'm not lying. Show me one who has and I will consider the moral dillema around them, despite the fact that this is a bit off topic.

Narrative 8: http://www.chirobase.org/03Edu/flesia.html

Human beings do not possess simply "kill, don't kill" rights. As I said, even a dead person has certain rights still applied to them. Even if a person is in a PVS that doesn't mean you can kill them if you feel like it. A whole other set of rights and responsibility comes into play. You are attempting to simplify down a very complex issue to a one sentence sound bite.

No, I’m following your criteria for what is a person, I am not debating what present law allows for, so don’t confuse the two.

True, which is why this particular opinion of mine only holds for feotuses earlier than eight weeks.

Fair enough, although at eight weeks we know the brain and nervous system has typically developed. That means that it may have already developed before that in many cases.

Other arguments come into play after that, such as a persons right to refuse to support another human with invasion of their bodily privacy, which as I said I would be happy to discuss but are also rather off topic.

Interesting point, and one that I do think valid if debatable. To begin with we can ask whether it is moral to refuse an essential organ transplant if it saves the life of another. Perfectly moral, almost all would accept.

Next we can ask whether it is moral to refuse a non-essential organ transplant if it saves the life of another. This is more borderline, but ultimately moral considering the cost to the donor (quality of life, shorter life span, etc).

However, finally ask the same question of a refusal of a blood transfusion to save the life of another and most would argue that such a refusal would be immoral, as the cost to the donor is negligible in the face of the opportunity cost to the recipient.

The question of bodily privacy in pregnancy lies between these last two points; certainly not as serious as an organ donation and far more serious than a blood transfusion.

However, were we to have artificial wombs where would that leave this argument? After all, most abortions are not because of bodily privacy, but because of the economic cost after birth.

However, I do accept that this could well be a valid point, but it’s not actually related to the personhood question.

Not quite sure how you define "very early on" .. this discussion is about embroys. Are you claiming that frozen embroys are possess a brain, nervous system or even consciousness?

No. If we follow your criteria then they would certainly not be capable of consciousness. Bu neither would a good few comatose or severely mentally handicapped individuals.

Obvious self-awareness isn't the only requirement for consciousness, but even if it were I'm not quite sure how you could know a mentally handicapped person isn't self-aware. If they fail to pass the tests fully developed humans pass, that might just mean they are no good at the tests.

Conciousness and self-awareness are two separate things. The former is the capacity to be aware of your surroundings and the latter is the capacity to ask the question “what am I?” I mentioned both, as you seemed to be confusing them.

Foeti certainly develop the former in the space of a few weeks post conception, however the latter only develops long after birth.

You saying by the very fact I've argued a bit more complex position that A is a person, B is not, my position is therefore invalid.

This is an incredible complex issue TC. The more complex my argument is the more valid it is, not the other way around. I have never claimed that a feotus and a mentally handicapped person are the equivelent, you did, and then expected me to argue this position.

No, you gave a set of criteria, I showed how it could be applied elsewhere and you piped up and added a caveat. Add enough caveats and your position becomes untenable.

I'm saying I've no knowledge of it happening. Do you?

See above.

I can make up theoretical positions too (what about the person who is brain dead but still consciousness and walking around?!), but I fail to see how it helps the discussion.

No, that’s not theoretical, that’s fantasy.

I believe, as do most people, that a person has the right to decide what happens to them after they die, or if they are placed in a position of PSV or brain death. I'm not quite sure how to explain the moral and ethical justifications for this in a simple paragraphy, but it is out of respect for the memory of the person that their final wishes be followed.

That’s a touching position, but it is at odds with what you’ve already put forward. Another caveat.

Thats not true, and I've never stated that. I'm not even sure how you would even draw that mis-informed idea from my posts.

You didn’t state it; you asked “Can you do what ever you wish with a persons body or grave after they have died?” and I answered.

First you claim I am justifying killing mentally disabled people, next I'm claiming that we should not respect the rights of the dead.

All I’m doing is applying your criteria, your logic to different scenarios. So either those cases are justifiable or there’s something wrong with your criteria and reasoning.

AFAIK a solicetor is legally required to carry out, to the best of his ability, the wishes of a deceased persons will.

Again, you’re confusing morality and law.

That is a different issue (god you like throwing in completely unrelated issues to muddy the waters doin't you). A dead person has no more legal right to force someone to do something than a living person.

Absolutely, but we’re discussing how a living person can force something against the wishes of a dead person here, not the other way around, in the same way that any person can force their wishes upon any other ‘non-person’.

If the person has stated in the will that they wish to be cremated that is actually illegal.

Again with the law-morality confusion. And I don’t think that is factually correct either for that matter.

You are claiming a dead person has no rights. That is incorrect. I'm not even sure I need to bother arguing that, as very basic and simple understanding of any western legal system would show that it is incorrect.

Stop mixing up law and morality. If we want to confuse them then legally the embryo is a person with full rights afforded to it. Case closed.

We are discussing the criteria you suggested for what defines a person or not and all I have done is applied them. If you don’t like how it plays out, that’s your criteria, not me.