The Right To Life?

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

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.

You're not even pretending to engage in debate anymore and you're certainly not going to address my challanges, so let's just leave it at that.

Zombrex

Ok, lets try and drag this back on topic....

The Corinthian wrote:

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?

Because a foetuse does not have a brain, spinal cords or nervous system. Once the foetues beings to develop a nervous system the issue becomes a lot less clear.

I don't know if some mentally disabled people have lost all self-awareness, and levels of consciousness. I would imagine this has to be examined on a case by case system, and I'm not even sure if we can actually tell the line between possessing consciousness and not.

What I do know is that foetues in early development don't possess brains or spinal cords, so I'm not sure anyone here would claim they do posses the ability to be sentient, conscious or self-aware.

If, theorectically, it could be shown that a serverly mentally disable person has lost all the traits that we know as consciousness, and was nothing more than a instintic machine, then I would consider that person to have lost what I define as personhood, just as the embryo never had personhood in the first place, so they are both without it.

That doesn't mean that it is ok to kill the mentally disable person, because other factors come into play with a person that at one point possed consciousness, such as their rights and wishes.

Its just like a dead person has rights, but a person who never existed doesn't.

The Corinthian wrote:

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.

My point was that just because you define a human being as no longer being a "person" that doesn't automatically assume you jump to "its ok to kill him/her". Other issues, other off topic issues, come into play. Other issues that are getting off topic.

I was objected to the so its ok to kill mentally disabled people comment you made earlier.

I don't believe that and it is only the logical extention of my argument if you ignore all other factors. As I tried to explain, the issues are full of other factors, so it is not a simple as narrowing it down to one specific its ok its not ok claim.

The Corinthian wrote:

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.

Not really, these things are pretty set as far as I know. But it is trivial for a doctor with modern scanning equipment to detect the formation of the spine, so it isn't really an issue.

The Corinthian wrote:

However, were we to have artificial wombs where would that leave this argument?

I personally don't think a woman has the right to abort her baby if the baby can be sustained in an artifical womb. Death of the foetus should be the unavoidable outcome of an abortion, not the aim. If the death of the feotus can be avoided it should be.

But as you said, not really relivent to this specific case, since no artifical womb can sustain a embroy, and probably won't be able to for a long time.

The Corinthian wrote:

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.

Possibly, but then we could debate if a severly mentally handicapped person is actually conscious or not until we are blue in the face. We know a embryo isn't.

The Corinthian wrote:

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.

It can be applied else where, but also you must recongise that other factors also come into play when you apply it else where.

A life form that has never posses consciousness is not the same as one that has and has lost it.

The circumstances, and particularly the rights of the individual change considerably.

To say that an unconscious feotus is the same as a brain dead 34 year old is incorrect except in the most simplest terms.

The Corinthian wrote:

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

No its not. I have never stated that dead people have no rights

The Corinthian wrote:

All I’m doing is applying your criteria, your logic to different scenarios.

Not very well it seems

The Corinthian wrote:

So either those cases are justifiable or there’s something wrong with your criteria and reasoning.

Only if you ignore all other factors.

If a mentally disable person is truely without possession of consciousness it is ok to kill them. Except for all the other reasons why its not. Other reasons that don't apply to the case of the embryo.

It is illogical to apply the rational behind embryos to non-conscious developed humans and vice versa in complete isolation. A large number of other factors come into play. This is a very complex subject.

The Corinthian wrote:

Again, you’re confusing morality and law.

In that case the law is reflecting the morality position of society, that dead people have a right to have their last wishes adhered to (within reason).

The Corinthian wrote:

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’.

Well it depends on if you define a consciousness that has yet to exist as dead, or equal in status to a consciousness that did exist. To me they are not the same issues. Never existing is not the same as existing and then dying.

The Corinthian wrote:

Stop mixing up law and morality.

Are you arguing that the law reguarding rights of dead people is immoral, or at best non-moral or not based on moral judgements?

If you aren't then the law and moraity agree on this issue, so what is the problem?

The Corinthian wrote:

We are discussing the criteria you suggested for what defines a person or not and all I have done is applied them.

You have applied them in complete isolation to situations that are not similar and then expect me to agree or disagree. If I disagree you claim my positions are inconsistent, when if fact it is the comparisions that are inconsistent.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Because a foetuse does not have a brain, spinal cords or nervous system. Once the foetues beings to develop a nervous system the issue becomes a lot less clear.

By eight weeks we certainly know that it has a brain and nervous system, but needless to say this does not mean that this is not the case already in many cases weeks before. Would you give benefit of the doubt in such cases then as you have with the mentally handicapped?

I don't know if some mentally disabled people have lost all self-awareness, and levels of consciousness. I would imagine this has to be examined on a case by case system, and I'm not even sure if we can actually tell the line between possessing consciousness and not.

Of course you can; non-reflex reaction to external stimuli. There are some cases where the mental handicapped do not have consciousness - and sometimes never did. More commonplace is lack of self-awareness, although if you wanted to be pedantic on that one, children under two years of age would fail on that score.

What I do know is that foetues in early development don't possess brains or spinal cords, so I'm not sure anyone here would claim they do posses the ability to be sentient, conscious or self-aware.

We’ve already established that they don’t have brains or spinal cords, but will by eight weeks. When this actually occurs or begins is another matter.

As for sentience, consciousness (both the same thing) and self-awareness (or sapience), I’ve already pointed out that the former two can be observed within weeks of fertilisation and the latter does not happen for a few years after birth.

If, theorectically, it could be shown that a serverly mentally disable person has lost all the traits that we know as consciousness, and was nothing more than a instintic machine, then I would consider that person to have lost what I define as personhood, just as the embryo never had personhood in the first place, so they are both without it.

Where does that leave animals? They have consciousness (but not sapience). Is being biologically Homo Sapiens now an additional criteria?

As for the term ‘machine’ - we’re all ‘machines’ really, just very clever ones, so you’ll have to be more specific.

That doesn't mean that it is ok to kill the mentally disable person, because other factors come into play with a person that at one point possed consciousness, such as their rights and wishes.

Why? Either their people by definition or they’re not, you can hardly start sticking in arbitrary caveats now, because you’re getting squeamish.

Its just like a dead person has rights, but a person who never existed doesn't.

A dead person has no rights. I really have no idea where you’re getting this.

Society has numerous laws relating to the dead, but these are typically there for economic (inheritance) reasons and public decency, not for the dead.

If you don’t believe me, go libel a corpse.

My point was that just because you define a human being as no longer being a "person" that doesn't automatically assume you jump to "its ok to kill him/her". Other issues, other off topic issues, come into play. Other issues that are getting off topic.

Of course they do, much like if I have a pet dog does not mean that I can go into the vet and have it put to sleep on a whim. But I could.

The point is one of rights. If a foetus has no rights, that does not mean that it will be terminated, only that there is no moral reason not to.

I was objected to the so its ok to kill mentally disabled people comment you made earlier.

But if they are assessed not to be people by your criteria, then it is OK.

I don't believe that and it is only the logical extention of my argument if you ignore all other factors. As I tried to explain, the issues are full of other factors, so it is not a simple as narrowing it down to one specific its ok its not ok claim.

What other factors? The only one you’ve suggested is that they were already is that they once fulfilled your criteria, which is irrelevant if they no longer do and never will again. It is arbitrary to the point that you might as well put race or gender in as a determinant too, and it would make no less sense.

If they’re no longer people and so we’re better off acting for the greater good and euthanasing them - with dignity and no cruelty, of course. Like we do with other non-people, like animals and corpses.

Not really, these things are pretty set as far as I know. But it is trivial for a doctor with modern scanning equipment to detect the formation of the spine, so it isn't really an issue.

Really? I would be very dubious if this. I’ve a friend who’s now entering her eighth month of pregnancy and they’re still not certain what the gender of the baby is, so please do back that up.

But as you said, not really relivent to this specific case, since no artifical womb can sustain a embroy, and probably won't be able to for a long time.

No, I said that the issue of bodily integrity is irrelevant to a discussion on the definition of personhood. As for a future artificial womb, we’ll almost certainly see one in your lifetime, I’d imagine.

Possibly, but then we could debate if a severly mentally handicapped person is actually conscious or not until we are blue in the face. We know a embryo isn't.

No, we can say whether a severely mentally handicapped person is actually conscious or not (see above).

It can be applied else where, but also you must recongise that other factors also come into play when you apply it else where.

Sure they do, but so far I’ve not seen a single factor that would give someone who irrevocably fails your criteria to personhood rights, including the right to life.

A life form that has never posses consciousness is not the same as one that has and has lost it.

The circumstances, and particularly the rights of the individual change considerably.

To say that an unconscious feotus is the same as a brain dead 34 year old is incorrect except in the most simplest terms.

Why? Both are essentially the same, neither are persons. If the latter special simply because you say so or is there are reason for this? You have yet to explain why, other than what I would imagine is a case of “it could be me” - which really is not a valid moral argument.

No its not. I have never stated that dead people have no rights

No you’ve stated they do, which is incorrect.

Not very well it seems

Don’t be childish - argue the post not the poster.

Only if you ignore all other factors.

If a mentally disable person is truely without possession of consciousness it is ok to kill them. Except for all the other reasons why its not. Other reasons that don't apply to the case of the embryo.

It is illogical to apply the rational behind embryos to non-conscious developed humans and vice versa in complete isolation. A large number of other factors come into play. This is a very complex subject.

What other factors? What other reasons? Why do people keep on using the excuse that it’s “a very complex subject” so that they don’t have to explain themselves or back their arguments up? It’s frankly like the classic ecclesiastical response to a difficult theological question of “it’s a mystery”.

The only factor you’ve suggested is that once having had consciousness means you retain those rights even when you’re no longer a person - which I’ve rejected as purely arbitrary and without rational foundation.

The only other reason is where the individual may have a chance of recovery and regaining their consciousness; which is inconsistent with the scenario that a foetus without consciousness will inevitably develop it if left to grow, yet is not afforded the same right.

In that case the law is reflecting the morality position of society, that dead people have a right to have their last wishes adhered to (within reason).

Then law is reflecting the morality position of society, that the foetus is a person from conception - I’m sorry, but you cannot use law as a metre in this discussion if you’re simply going to cherry pick the laws you like.

Well it depends on if you define a consciousness that has yet to exist as dead, or equal in status to a consciousness that did exist. To me they are not the same issues. Never existing is not the same as existing and then dying.

Because?

Are you arguing that the law reguarding rights of dead people is immoral, or at best non-moral or not based on moral judgements?

If you aren't then the law and moraity agree on this issue, so what is the problem?

I am arguing that if we begin to use the law as a reflection of morality then this discussion will come to a quick end because the law defines people upon when life begins rather than consciousness.

So you choose - either you agree with law as a valid reflection of morality or not, but you can’t have it both ways.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

By eight weeks we certainly know that it has a brain and nervous system, but needless to say this does not mean that this is not the case already in many cases weeks before. Would you give benefit of the doubt in such cases then as you have with the mentally handicapped?

Yes, though I'm not sure the spinal cord or brain ever develop fully before the 8 weeks. My understanding is if they develop outside of the 8 week point it is normally passed it.

But this thread it about embryos, so the issue isn't really that relivent.

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course you can; non-reflex reaction to external stimuli.

That can show the person possess consciousness, but if you don't get non-reflex reaction to external stimuli that doesn't prove they don't possess consciousness, just that they aren't stimulatied by the stimuli.

The Corinthian wrote:

As for sentience, consciousness (both the same thing) and self-awareness (or sapience), I’ve already pointed out that the former two can be observed within weeks of fertilisation and the latter does not happen for a few years after birth.

Which is why I'm focusing on the former, rather than the later

The Corinthian wrote:

Where does that leave animals? They have consciousness (but not sapience). Is being biologically Homo Sapiens now an additional criteria?

Thats a very good question, but slightly outside the scope of this thread.

The Corinthian wrote:

As for the term ‘machine’ - we’re all ‘machines’ really, just very clever ones, so you’ll have to be more specific.

I was, I stuck "instictive" in front of the term machine.

The Corinthian wrote:

Why? Either their people by definition or they’re not, you can hardly start sticking in arbitrary caveats now, because you’re getting squeamish.

Why what? Why do other factors come into play, such as patient rights, guardianship rights, respect for the dead, respect for dying wishes and wills etc. Because thats the funny way society has decided to structure its moral frame work.

And no one is getting squeamish ... :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote:

A dead person has no rights.

That isn't true.

For a start the vast majority of countries recongise that dead people have the "right to remain silent", which is another term for the right to have their remains rest in peace (not to be confused by the right of a prisioner to remain silent).

A large number of countries also have a limited set of contracts that are still valid after a person dies, such as a will agreed with a solicator.

The Corinthian wrote:

Society has numerous laws relating to the dead, but these are typically there for economic (inheritance) reasons and public decency, not for the dead.

True, but not all of them are. Some exists solely to protect the righst of the dead.

The Corinthian wrote:

If you don’t believe me, go libel a corpse.

If you don't believe me go dig up someones grave.

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course they do, much like if I have a pet dog does not mean that I can go into the vet and have it put to sleep on a whim. But I could.

Not if your pet dog had be recongised as a person and had stated that you can't before he became a dog ... umm, these analogies are getting abit abstract.

The Corinthian wrote:

The point is one of rights. If a foetus has no rights, that does not mean that it will be terminated, only that there is no moral reason not to.

There maybe no moral reasons related to its rights, that doesn't mean their may be no moral reasons.

If a feotus with no brain is tomorrow classifed as a non-person, can I terminate any feotus I wish? Without the mothers consent?

Like I said .. "other factors" ...

The Corinthian wrote:

But if they are assessed not to be people by your criteria, then it is OK.

Depends on what you mean by "ok" and the circumstances surrounding the event. Its not ok, for example to bash to death your family dog because you want to go on holiday. Generally it is not considered morally ok to put your dog to sleep because you wish to go on holiday, though I'm not sure what the law is in this reguard. It is ok to put him to sleep if he is in great pain or suffering.

As I've tried to explain, nothing in life is as clear cut as you seem to claim or wish it was. Simply saying "My dog is not a person so I have the moral right to kill it" is not true.

Like I said ... "other factors" ...

The Corinthian wrote:

What other factors?

State of the patient.
If the patient has a living will
The wishes of the guardian
The views of the medical carers
The assessment of the brain functions patient
The necessity of the need to terminate the patients life

.. for example. There are others I'm sure.

The Corinthian wrote:

If they’re no longer people and so we’re better off acting for the greater good and euthanasing them

Under what circumstances would it be for the "greater good"?

The Corinthian wrote:

No, I said that the issue of bodily integrity is irrelevant to a discussion on the definition of personhood.

Well that is true as well. But then the issue of bodily integrity is also falls into the scope of "other factors" ....

The Corinthian wrote:

No, we can say whether a severely mentally handicapped person is actually conscious or not (see above).

To quote you I would be "highly dubious" of that.

We can tell that they are, but it is harder to tell they aren't. Of course in certain situations we can definately tell, but in borderline cases its is much harder. I would air on the side of caution.

In the case of brain dead people, when we are certain the no longer possess consciousness or even brain functions, it is considered morally acceptable to terminate their lives, as they are no longer considered persons. I would agree with that moral assessment.

The Corinthian wrote:

Sure they do, but so far I’ve not seen a single factor that would give someone who irrevocably fails your criteria to personhood rights, including the right to life.

Er .. ok

You are aware that even certain animals have a certain number of rights?

The Corinthian wrote:

Why? Both are essentially the same, neither are persons.

They are not the same.

One died, the other never existed. Neither are currently persons, but then neither Charlie Hughy or my grandfather are currently persons and their status in death is not the same. For a start my grandfather didn't have a right to a state funeral.

The Corinthian wrote:

Don’t be childish - argue the post not the poster.

I am attacking the post, in your posts you are not applying "my logic" to situations very well. I would kindly ask you refrain from calling it "my logic", it isn't my logic it is your logic based on a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of my logic

The Corinthian wrote:

What other factors? What other reasons? Why do people keep on using the excuse that it’s “a very complex subject” so that they don’t have to explain themselves or back their arguments up?

I am explaining it. You are not accepting these explinations as valid.

I say one other factor is the rights of dead people, and their last wishes. You claim they don't have any rights, which is incorrect.

I say one factor is that a dead person has a different status than one who never existed in the first place. You claim that also isn't ture, which is also incorrect

I've listed the other factors, and you have ignored them. I'm not hiding, you are refusing to accept the complexity of the subject, I assume because it makes it harder to trap me in a logical paradox.

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s frankly like the classic ecclesiastical response to a difficult theological question of “it’s a mystery”.

I've never claimed "its a mystery". I have answered your questions. Its not my fault you don't accept or understand those answers.

The Corinthian wrote:

The only factor you’ve suggested is that once having had consciousness means you retain those rights even when you’re no longer a person - which I’ve rejected as purely arbitrary and without rational foundation.

Fair enough, the vast majority of the human species disagrees with that assessment, as do I. But you are perfectly entitled to your view on the matter.

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m sorry, but you cannot use law as a metre in this discussion if you’re simply going to cherry pick the laws you like.

Yes actually I can when the purpose is to refute your claim that a dead person has no rights. They do, both morally and legally, in this country. You might not agree, as I don't agree with certain laws in this country, but then you have to argue why you don't agree, simply stating "they don't have any rights" is not acceptable debating.

The Corinthian wrote:

Because?

Because a consciousness that has existed is a person at some point. At some point rights are bestowed on that person.

The fact that a person with rights has at one point existed means that others of the human race owe a level of respect to the existence of those rights, even if the person no longer exists.

If you don't believe me, as I said, dig up someones grave and see the reaction.

The Corinthian wrote:

So you choose - either you agree with law as a valid reflection of morality or not, but you can’t have it both ways.

I believe the law can be a valid reflection of morality in some cases, and not in others. As apparently, so do you.

oscarBravo

Wicknight wrote:

If you don't believe me go dig up someones grave.

Wouldn't that be a criminal act, rather than a violation of an individual person's rights?

Zombrex

oscarBravo wrote:

Wouldn't that be a criminal act, rather than a violation of an individual person's rights?

But why is it a criminal act?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Killing someone is a criminal act, but it is a criminal act because society recongises that killing someone is a violation of that persons right to life.

oscarBravo

Wicknight wrote:

But why is it a criminal act?

At a guess, because our laws are heavily based on a Judaeo-Christian sense of morality?

Wicknight wrote:

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Killing someone is a criminal act, but it is a criminal act because society recongises that killing someone is a violation of that persons right to life.

Fair enough, but that's not enough to support an assertion that a dead person has rights. Not every breach of a person's rights translates into a criminal offence, and not every criminal offence is based on an individual person's rights.

Kevster

The benefits to be gained from Embryonic Stem-Cell therapy are too great for us to be even debating over. I have been flabbergasted and yet disappointed to realise that people can actually be against cell-therapy using these embryos. However, I do understand why they are against it.


The embryos don't feel pain and have as much consciousness as the Amoeba - ie, none. Medicine has improved in leaps and bounds throughout the past century and we should not be stalling on this. We are becoming too bureaucratic and if democracy has its way we will soon have to apply for permits to take a dump in our own toilets.


Kevin.

oscarBravo

Kevin, that's a topic for another thread.

Zombrex

oscarBravo wrote:

Fair enough, but that's not enough to support an assertion that a dead person has rights. Not every breach of a person's rights translates into a criminal offence, and not every criminal offence is based on an individual person's rights.

It is enought to support the assertion a dead person has rights. A dead person, under our current moral and legal framework, has rights. That is a simple fact.

If TC wishes to argue that this current position is flawed, that a dead person doesn't deserve these rights, thats fine. But I would suggest it is a topic for another thread.

scotusone

an observation for the sake of clarity. it seems that more than one type of right maybe under discussion here.

a civil or legal right is the creation of a state in legislation. it tells us nothing per se morally.

what are usually called human or natural rights may or may not be recognised in law .

to say a dead person has rights in the sense of natural rights does not seem intelligible to me . while the estate of the deceased may enjoy legal rights and the state may impose legal duties on the living as regards the treament of the cadaver or the execution of the deceased wishes i dont see how the now non existing person can enjoy a right in the non civil sense .

but if i can return to a previous question of mine ,
when comatose , am i a person?

to me tell that i am not a person when the law says i am not a person is to tell me nothing about anything except the law .
what is the functional ontological difference between a comatose person and a pvs human ?

the practical difference may be that when some one wakes from a coma we can then say "ah , he was comatose , not in a pvs " because he has woken .

this post factum knowledge doesnt advance our understanding greatly .

also , by cognative ability i did not intend intelligence. but even if i did , what does that change?

what is meant by intelligence that is peculiarly human ? when does intellgence stop being clever animals and become rights invested persons?

it may be the case that we owe more moral care to some animals and less to some humans than we currently accord.this is singers position as i understand it ,and it is coherent.

or it may be the case that we do not wish to arrive at that conclusion and instead accord certain rights specifically to human animals qua humans.


however it seems to me <and the gods know i aint kant> that this desire to locate a special specific kind of consciousness which merits special moral treatment is a akin to a religous person talking about the moment the soul enters the body. consciousness is fluid and changing . it is pointed out to me that when asleep i am still conscious.
well .....i maybe but the type of consiousness i am enjoying is surely not that which we can describe as conscious thought which was the yard stick being used.

dreaming is different to being awake , as is dreaming that i am awake is different to being awake , though i may not be conscious of that difference.

over that last 20 years many peolpe have tried to find a satisfactory formulation of this personhood question , thought , consciuosness , sentiency etc.til now all have been unsatisfactory.

the history of human society particularly in the last century has made me uncomfortable with any yardstick that gives rights to humans other than their humanity.

when we begin to merit or aquire basic rights because of something we can do and lose them because there is something we cannot do then we have begun down a road that may not be one we wish to find ourselves on.

and that simply is what we are doing here. personhood is a way of saying some human beings have rights and some dont because some can do certain(unclear) thing that others mostly likely will be able to do but not for another coulple of weeks .
and because they wont be able to perform this function till tuesday week it is within our discretion to kill them .

this is not an easy dilemma.
and im sure that those on this thread who disagree with me do so from decent conviction, but isnt the question really whether or not this society wishes to sanction the killing , in certain specific circumstances,of other humans.and since we have an ingrained moral taboo against killing ,and especilally the weak ,we are driven for very humane reasons to rationlise that which we desire to do.

Zombrex

scotusone wrote:

a civil or legal right is the creation of a state in legislation. it tells us nothing per se morally.

That isn't true at all, why do people keep saying that??

Civil or legal "rights" are actually the only rights recongised by the state. And the vast majority of times they are based on moral judgements, or at least logical positions deduced from moral judgements.

They might not agree with your particular moral outlook, as a lot of Irish law doesn't agree with mine, but that is not to say that they are not based on moral assessements. They are based on moral assessements.

scotusone wrote:

to say a dead person has rights in the sense of natural rights does not seem intelligible to me .

Define "natural rights" ....

scotusone wrote:

while the estate of the deceased may enjoy legal rights and the state may impose legal duties on the living as regards the treament of the cadaver or the execution of the deceased wishes i dont see how the now non existing person can enjoy a right in the non civil sense .

These legal rights are a proper representation of the fact that society recongises a moral position when it comes to deceased people. As oscarBravo says the main reason for this is probably because we have a morality system shaped largely on the Judo/Christian churches.

scotusone wrote:

but if i can return to a previous question of mine ,
when comatose , am i a person?

Yes you are. You still possess consciousness when comatose, you just aren't using most of it at the current moment.

When I'm not in my house I still own my house (actually, I wish, but for the sake of argument), and you can't bulldoze it

scotusone wrote:

what is the functional ontological difference between a comatose person and a pvs human ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma

scotusone wrote:

the practical difference may be that when some one wakes from a coma we can then say "ah , he was comatose , not in a pvs " because he has woken .

this post factum knowledge doesnt advance our understanding greatly .

Thats not the "practical" difference

scotusone wrote:

well .....i maybe but the type of consiousness i am enjoying is surely not that which we can describe as conscious thought which was the yard stick being used.

Not following?

The physical make up of your brain does not alter when you are asleep, just the current state it is in. You possess the same consciousness asleep, as awake.

scotusone wrote:

over that last 20 years many peolpe have tried to find a satisfactory formulation of this personhood question , thought , consciuosness , sentiency etc.til now all have been unsatisfactory.

Unsatisfactory to whom?

scotusone wrote:

and because they wont be able to perform this function till tuesday week it is within our discretion to kill them .

Yes, that is exactly the position.

Without getting into too much detail, I kill approx 2 million human sperm this morning.

So the question becomes what is the difference between a sperm, a zygote, an embryo, a child, an arm, a skin cell, a brain dead person etc etc.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

That can show the person possess consciousness, but if you don't get non-reflex reaction to external stimuli that doesn't prove they don't possess consciousness, just that they aren't stimulatied by the stimuli.

Err... actually, I think you’ll find that it does prove it - unless you’re suggesting that they’re ignoring the stimuli?

Thats a very good question, but slightly outside the scope of this thread.

Not really as you’ve only given one criteria, of consciousness. For animals with consciousness not to be afforded the same rights as humans with consciousness we would have to add another criteria - species. Yet another caveat.

I was, I stuck "instictive" in front of the term machine.

Then humans under the age of around two would fall into the category of ‘instinctive machines’ as they are not yet sapient.

Why what? Why do other factors come into play, such as patient rights, guardianship rights, respect for the dead, respect for dying wishes and wills etc. Because thats the funny way society has decided to structure its moral frame work.

Patent rights are only applicable if it is a person, guardian rights are not in question and respect for the dead is simply custom. You are attempting to obfuscate your own definition with irrelevancies.

For a start the vast majority of countries recongise that dead people have the "right to remain silent", which is another term for the right to have their remains rest in peace (not to be confused by the right of a prisioner to remain silent).

To begin with most of the laws regarding the dead are actually are directed towards economics or public decency or hygiene. And secondly you cannot use law as an argument only when it suits.

If you don't believe me go dig up someones grave.

Is that protecting the rights of the dead or the next of kin or public health and decency? Please demonstrate how it is the former before you make such statements.

Not if your pet dog had be recongised as a person and had stated that you can't before he became a dog ... umm, these analogies are getting abit abstract.

I was rebutting the point that simply because you would not choose to euthanase a non-person, does not mean you do not have the right to do so if you are their owner / guardian, so don’t change the argument.

There maybe no moral reasons related to its rights, that doesn't mean their may be no moral reasons.

If a feotus with no brain is tomorrow classifed as a non-person, can I terminate any feotus I wish? Without the mothers consent?

No, because you don’t own it. It is not your property. If a foetus with no brain is tomorrow classified as a non-person then the mother, who owns it, would be able to do what she wished with it. Don’t confuse her rights and yours.

Like I said .. "other factors" ...

You’ve not come up with any so far.

Depends on what you mean by "ok" and the circumstances surrounding the event. Its not ok, for example to bash to death your family dog because you want to go on holiday. Generally it is not considered morally ok to put your dog to sleep because you wish to go on holiday, though I'm not sure what the law is in this reguard. It is ok to put him to sleep if he is in great pain or suffering.

Morality varies from nation to nation in this regard, but ultimately you do have the right to ‘humanely’ euthanase your pet dog. Even if you go on holiday - happens all the time with people moving countries euthanasing their pets if they can’t find anyone to take them.

As I've tried to explain, nothing in life is as clear cut as you seem to claim or wish it was. Simply saying "My dog is not a person so I have the moral right to kill it" is not true.

Except that it is. If we own the animal we can kill it. We can’t be cruel and we might have to do so using a vet rather than a DIY job, but ultimately I can walk into any vet’s office and get them to put my pet cat or dog to sleep - I’ve even done it.

State of the patient.

No one is arguing with this. Either it fits your criteria or it does not.

If the patient has a living will

There are limits to this as there are with any will.

The wishes of the guardian
The views of the medical carers

Irrelevant. We’re discussing the rights of the non-person, not the rights of those responsible or owning the non-person.

The assessment of the brain functions patient

This is just the state of the patient in other words - you’re repeating yourself.

The necessity of the need to terminate the patients life

Irrelevant. A motive does not define a right.

Under what circumstances would it be for the "greater good"?

Economic. They’re using up resources without contributing.

Well that is true as well. But then the issue of bodily integrity is also falls into the scope of "other factors" ....

No not ‘as well’ - it’s a separate argument as it argues that bodily integrity could supersede another’s rights, even if they are a person.

We can tell that they are, but it is harder to tell they aren't. Of course in certain situations we can definately tell, but in borderline cases its is much harder. I would air on the side of caution.

Then you would have to do the same for foeti. If we can tell they have a nervous system at 8 weeks then they would be borderline from any point after, say, 4 weeks. Similarly, where the mentally handicapped individual is not borderline and plainly lacks consciousness, then euthanasing would be acceptable.

In the case of brain dead people, when we are certain the no longer possess consciousness or even brain functions, it is considered morally acceptable to terminate their lives, as they are no longer considered persons. I would agree with that moral assessment.

But that differs from your initial definition. Either you define people as being conscious or as having a functioning biological brain. Please decide, as they are not the same thing.

You are aware that even certain animals have a certain number of rights?

Ultimately not the right to life.

One died, the other never existed. Neither are currently persons, but then neither Charlie Hughy or my grandfather are currently persons and their status in death is not the same. For a start my grandfather didn't have a right to a state funeral.

So what? They are still simply lumps of meat - non-persons. Just because you have affection to their memory does not make them any more human. You’re picking an arbitrary caveat which makes as much sense as saying that if they’re white they’re people.

I say one factor is that a dead person has a different status than one who never existed in the first place. You claim that also isn't ture, which is also incorrect

It’s an arbitrary caveat. The bottom line is that it is no longer a person - it’s a lump of meat, a cadaver. We treat it with respect, as we do and should animals, but that does not confer upon it the same rights. Saying that it was once a person is thus irrelevant as it bares no relation to what it is now - which is what matters ultimately.

I've listed the other factors, and you have ignored them. I'm not hiding, you are refusing to accept the complexity of the subject, I assume because it makes it harder to trap me in a logical paradox.

I’ve responded to all your points, without exception. If I’ve failed to do so point out where or retract your accusation.

Fair enough, the vast majority of the human species disagrees with that assessment, as do I. But you are perfectly entitled to your view on the matter.

What? Where using law as a metre of morality didn’t work, you now want to use vox populi? We’re discussing moral criteria set by you, not by law or by the unwashed masses (who, incidentally would probably disagree with most of your moral positions too). So stick to that and stop obfuscating.

Yes actually I can when the purpose is to refute your claim that a dead person has no rights. They do, both morally and legally, in this country. You might not agree, as I don't agree with certain laws in this country, but then you have to argue why you don't agree, simply stating "they don't have any rights" is not acceptable debating.

We are not debating law; we are debating a moral framework from first principles. And, as I have repeatedly said, you cannot use law as an argument for morality as it would ultimately disagree with you in this country.

Because a consciousness that has existed is a person at some point. At some point rights are bestowed on that person.

The fact that a person with rights has at one point existed means that others of the human race owe a level of respect to the existence of those rights, even if the person no longer exists.

If you don't believe me, as I said, dig up someones grave and see the reaction.

And as I have said, don’t confuse respect with fundamental rights. Cows must be slaughtered humanely, but that does not mean they have a right to life.

I believe the law can be a valid reflection of morality in some cases, and not in others. As apparently, so do you.

Really? And how are you going to choose which laws are valid reflections and which are not here? Subjective cherry picking that’s frankly irrelevant to the argument.

Stick to working out the logic of the morality in question without recourse to subjectivism.

Zombrex

Once againt TC drags another quite interesting topic into pointless bickering over largely irrelevent topics.

We could go back and forth, but I'm repeating the same things I said in my first post and he is ignoring my replies, so I fail to see the point.

To sum up ...

I believe the fundamental important element of human individuality is human consciousness.

If a feotus, by not having a brain or spine, does not possess the ability to produce consciousness then we can be certain it does not possess consciousness. Therefore it is not and never was a person as we know and is not protected by our rights.

Despite what TC claims it is not currently possible to tell for sure that a person in a PVS no longer possess the ability for consciousness. Neither is it possible to tell this in a child. (TC I suggest you read up a bit on the subject before you comment). So I for one decide to air on the side of caution in these situations. I'm not claiming that they definiately do or don't, only that we don't know or have the ability to know, at the moment.

If one can be certain that a person no longer possess the ability for consciousness then their personhood is gone. An example would be a brain dead person. These people are dead in my view, and it is acceptable to cease artifical extention of their lives. As I stated to TC, other factors come into play here of course, such as the wishes of the patient, the wishes of the guardian etc. This cannot be ignored, and it is not as simple to claim that once someone is brain dead it is ok for anyone to kill them. I would point out that this is not a question of property, as it is with animals. It is not possible to own a human, alive or even dead. The question of extending or ending the life of a dead person is not a question of ownership, it is a question of the rights post-mortum of the dead person.

Despite what TC claims, it is recongised in western society that dead people retain limited rights, such as the right to rest in peace, after they die. These rights can be administrated over by a guardian, but that is not ownership. I agree with this right. The requirement for this right is that they at one point did exist. A feotus terminated before an possible development of brain system has never existed as a person, so these rights are irrelivent to this situation.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Once againt TC drags another quite interesting topic into pointless bickering over largely irrelevent topics.

We could go back and forth, but I'm repeating the same things I said in my first post and he is ignoring my replies, so I fail to see the point.

I’ve replied and rebutted every point - sometimes repeatedly. Do not attempt to debase the discussion with some base attempt to weasel out of it by blaming someone else.

I believe the fundamental important element of human individuality is human consciousness.

This is the criterion you have put forward as a basis of your reasoning.

If a feotus, by not having a brain or spine, does not possess the ability to produce consciousness then we can be certain it does not possess consciousness. Therefore it is not and never was a person as we know and is not protected by our rights.

That is consistent with your criterion.

Despite what TC claims it is not currently possible to tell for sure that a person in a PVS no longer possess the ability for consciousness.

PVS is by definition unconscious and unaware. It means being unresponsive to external stimuli, with the possible exception of pain stimuli.

“Several studies point to common mechanisms in different clinical conditions that lead to loss of consciousness. Persistent vegetative state (PVS) is a condition in which an individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but maintains sleep-wake cycles with full or partial autonomic functions.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Cognitive_neuroscience_approaches

Neither is it possible to tell this in a child. (TC I suggest you read up a bit on the subject before you comment).

I have. Actually it is possible, however when consciousness does begin is an open debate. Nonetheless, this is not inconsistent with your criterion.

If one can be certain that a person no longer possess the ability for consciousness then their personhood is gone. An example would be a brain dead person. These people are dead in my view, and it is acceptable to cease artifical extention of their lives.

Yes. That is consistent with your criterion.

As I stated to TC, other factors come into play here of course, such as the wishes of the patient, the wishes of the guardian etc. It is not possible to own a human, alive or even dead. This cannot be ignored, and it is not as simple to claim that once someone is brain dead it is ok for anyone to kill them. I would point out that this is not a question of property, as it is with animals.

Do museums of archaeology and anthropology know this?

Despite what TC claims, it is recongised in western society that dead people retain limited rights, such as the right to rest in peace, after they die.

These are very limited rights (yes, I accept your point) and are typically superseded for the common good - graveyards are moved about all the time.

Animals too have limited rights, not to suffer and to be treated humanely, but ultimately they do not have a right to life, as they are also not considered people.

These rights can be administrated over by a guardian, but that is not ownership.

Actually you own a corpse, you’re not guardian. Not that it makes any difference, as you don’t own a foetus.

I agree with this right. The requirement for this right is that they at one point did exist. A feotus terminated before an possible development of brain system has never existed as a person, so these rights are irrelivent to this situation.

Your criterion for being a person was conciseness. If it fails to meet this criterion it cannot be a person and thus be afforded the rights of a person by your logic. To get out of the paradox of postnatal cases that fail to meet this criterion you added a caveat; that they were exempt from the rules on the basis that they once met them.

This condition, parachuted in to avoid the paradox, cannot be reasonably accepted unless you consider it a completely new presumption.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually you own a corpse, you’re not guardian. Not that it makes any difference, as you don’t own a foetus.
...
Do museums of archaeology and anthropology know this?

Actually you don't.

It has been common law for nearly 200 years that a corpse "belongs to no man". This is true in England and Ireland. A person can take legal custody of the corpse, but they do not own it as property. The entitlements they have over the corpse are not the same as over property they hold.

Museums know this quite well. There is a special section in the 1994 National Monuments Act that endows the state with custody of ancient Irish remains.

http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/human_remains/index.html


Ownership of ancient human remains

The National Monuments Acts vest ownership in the State of all archaeological objects, including ancient human remains, discovered after 1994. The Director of the National Museum of Ireland is empowered to 'dispose' of these objects at discretion, either by taking them into permanent curation or by waiving claim of ownership. Legal ownership of human remains not retained by the Museum is not straightforward. Are they the property of the excavating archaeologist or the landowner of the site of discovery? Common Law holds that there can be 'no property in a corpse' but should a court decide to regard ancient human remains as 'chattels' the landowner will almost certainly have superior title to that of the finder/archaeologist, even if the archaeologist is excavating under licence and with the landowner's permission. A landowner could in such circumstances demand that an archaeologist return ancient human remains for reburial.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Your criterion for being a person was conciseness. If it fails to meet this criterion it cannot be a person and thus be afforded the rights of a person by your logic. To get out of the paradox of postnatal cases that fail to meet this criterion you added a caveat; that they were exempt from the rules on the basis that they once met them.

They aren't "exempt" from any "rules". They have more rights than a non-existent person because they have at one point existed. As I stated before, dead people have more (albeit very limited) rights than people who never existed in the first place. You yourself admit this.