Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Christianity Today Op Ed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Brain death at the end of life is quite a bit different than an embryo who hasn't yet developed a brain. It WILL develop a brain if you don't kill it first. A brain dead individual will not and cannot recover. If they could recover, then we would not "take away their rights" and would be unable to unplug them.

    So that leaves "ability to suffer" - since when is that a criteria for killing someone? If you anesthetize them first, then it is OK?

    And "person" is a legal term. It has no meaning in biology. Biologically a fetus is just as much a human organism as a 1 month old baby. It is perfectly normal for it to not have a brain yet. YET.
    Person is a philosophical term. Biology tells us absolutely nothing on its own about rights or morality. So we dispense with that distinction. Regardless, if we're talking about whether abortion is to be legal, we're talking about legal terms.

    What you describe for brain-dead patients is that they no longer have the potential for neurological capacity. That's correct. Embryos and fetuses do have such potential. However, so do gametes. So, too, do potential gametes. Do we confer rights on potentials? We do not -- otherwise vasectomies and contraception would be similarly in violation of rights.

    So: for someone who argues that a fetus has legal rights because it has potential to acquire the basic properties of personhood, the question is whether they can identify anything else in law that confers rights to a potential entity.

    --Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      Neither. Both parts can be kept artificially alive without the other for a period of time. And one need not a "fully functioning brain" to be alive.

      Source: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health-you-asked/it-true-you-can-live-without-brain

      Back in 1980, an article appeared in Science, one of the world’s top journals, describing the work of John Lorber, a professor of pediatrics at University of Sheffield in England who had conducted a number of studies on individuals who were afflicted with hydrocephalus and came up with some remarkable findings. Lorber had subjected his patients to CAT scans and found that while most of them were mentally impaired, some, even when their brain filled no more than 5% of the cranial cavity led normal lives. In one documented case, a colleague referred a young man to Lorber because of his unusually large head which apparently was not causing him any difficulty. A CAT scan revealed a skull lined with about a millimeter thick layer of brain tissue and filled with cerebrospinal fluid. Of course the brain stem which sits at the bottom of the brain and connects to the spine was normal. Since it controls vital functions such as breathing, swallowing, digestion, eye movement and heartbeat, there can be no life without it. But the rest of the brain is obviously capable of some remarkable feats, with one part able to compensate for deficiencies in another. In the case of the young man who Lorber investigated, the thin layer of brain cells was certainly up to the task of providing the necessary brain power. The student had a high IQ of 126 and had a first class honours degree in mathematics.

      © Copyright Original Source


      We have already dispensed with the notion of "fully-functioning" brains so that's not relevant.

      But what you're saying is that if we were able to decapitate a person, keeping their head alive and brain active, then neither the head or the body would be a "person" with legal rights? That by virtue of decapitation -- even if the person's brain remains intact and fully operative -- strips the patient from her legal rights?

      That's directly at odds with your point about persons not needing "fully functioning" brains.

      --Sam
      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sam View Post
        This would be an ethical question but it's the wrong category of question.

        The argument is not merely that embryos and fetuses, up to a certain date of gestation, do not suffer. It's that they lack the neurological capacity for suffering and, indeed, sensation processing. That relates to the question of what is a "person" and at what point do human organisms gain and lose the rights afforded to all persons?

        We understand, for instance, that brain-dead patients do not have the rights afforded to persons -- at least not all of them. We understand that people who die do so slowly -- brain-death often precedes the death of other organs. We recognize, for the most part, that the life and health of a grown pregnant woman supersedes whatever rights are afforded to embryos and fetuses.

        So the question isn't whether an organism suffers when talking about its rights. The question involves (but is not limited to) whether an organism has sufficient neurological capacity for suffering.

        --Sam
        Likening a developing fetus to a brain dead person is stupid. Assuming a normal pregnancy, a fetus will inevitably develop brain function. It's all part of the human life cycle. A brain dead person, on the other hand, is extremely unlikely to get better.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Likening a developing fetus to a brain dead person is stupid. Assuming a normal pregnancy, a fetus will inevitably develop brain function. It's all part of the human life cycle. A brain dead person, on the other hand, is extremely unlikely to get better.
          This is the argument that Sparko made and see above for my explanation concerning potentiality vs. actuality.

          --Sam
          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
            We have already dispensed with the notion of "fully-functioning" brains so that's not relevant.
            Actually, it is quite relevant. I've stated pretty clearly that brain development is merely one in series of complex interrelated cells that have specified functions. 5% of a "normal functioning" brain was sufficient for that chap to live without intervention.

            But what you're saying is that if we were able to decapitate a person, keeping their head alive and brain active, then neither the head or the body would be a "person" with legal rights?
            Not independent of the rest. Again, artificially keeping a part of the organism able to respond to stimuli isn't "keeping it alive" in the sense that an embryo/fetus/infant is alive. Self-directed and uninterrupted growth and development is what it means to be alive. Not specification of function.

            That by virtue of decapitation -- even if the person's brain remains intact and fully operative -- strips the patient from her legal rights?
            Actually, yes. If anyone is kept artificially alive in ANY state, they lose the right to self-determination and are at the discretion of the doctor and next-of-kin. A brain can not communicate its desires or decisions.

            That's directly at odds with your point about persons not needing "fully functioning" brains.
            Not really. Again, an organ is only a PART of a self-contained and self-directed human organism. Embryologists and Biologists get that. This isn't rocket science. And when outlandish scenarios are introduced, you know their argument is nonsense.
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            - Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam View Post
              ... However, so do gametes. So, too, do potential gametes. ...
              No they don't. Not unless another external gamete from the opposite sex gets involved.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              - Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                Actually, it is quite relevant. I've stated pretty clearly that brain development is merely one in series of complex interrelated cells that have specified functions. 5% of a "normal functioning" brain was sufficient for that chap to live without intervention.



                Not independent of the rest. Again, artificially keeping a part of the organism able to respond to stimuli isn't "keeping it alive" in the sense that an embryo/fetus/infant is alive. Self-directed and uninterrupted growth and development is what it means to be alive. Not specification of function.



                Actually, yes. If anyone is kept artificially alive in ANY state, they lose the right to self-determination and are at the discretion of the doctor and next-of-kin. A brain can not communicate its desires or decisions.



                Not really. Again, an organ is only a PART of a self-contained and self-directed human organism. Embryologists and Biologists get that. This isn't rocket science. And when outlandish scenarios are introduced, you know their argument is nonsense.

                We dispensed with it because no one is arguing for the "fully functioning" claim. It's a red herring that has been dispensed with.

                So your argument here is that, assuming we have the technology to decapitate a human head while keeping the person's brain alive and fully-functioning, that head/brain has no legal rights of personhood? Even if they're fully able to communicate with you (e.g., a Futurama-style "head in a jar")?

                You're saying that such an entity -- that retains not only the ability to suffer but the memory and higher-brain function of its pre-decapitated state -- has less of a claim to personhood than a blastocyst?

                --Sam
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  Person is a philosophical term. Biology tells us absolutely nothing on its own about rights or morality. So we dispense with that distinction. Regardless, if we're talking about whether abortion is to be legal, we're talking about legal terms.

                  What you describe for brain-dead patients is that they no longer have the potential for neurological capacity. That's correct. Embryos and fetuses do have such potential. However, so do gametes. So, too, do potential gametes. Do we confer rights on potentials? We do not -- otherwise vasectomies and contraception would be similarly in violation of rights.

                  So: for someone who argues that a fetus has legal rights because it has potential to acquire the basic properties of personhood, the question is whether they can identify anything else in law that confers rights to a potential entity.

                  --Sam
                  No, gametes if left alone won't develop into a human being, they are only haploid. Only when they fuse together to form a diploid zygote does it become a new organism.

                  And you say "person" is a philisophical term and then go straight into arguing for legal rights of "personhood"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    We dispensed with it because no one is arguing for the "fully functioning" claim. It's a red herring that has been dispensed with.
                    Jim was. He distinguished between a preborn that HAD and DID NOT HAVE a functioning brain.

                    So your argument here is that, assuming we have the technology to decapitate a human head while keeping the person's brain alive and fully-functioning, that head/brain has no legal rights of personhood? Even if they're fully able to communicate with you (e.g., a Futurama-style "head in a jar")?
                    Sure. Let's go far fetched... If we decapitate someone, and can biologically alter their heart to keep itself beating without the medulla, and hook them up to a computer that can simulate communication, we can say they are a person without a brain. Want to go further? Let's say we figure out how to transplant brains, and I hire someone to kidnap Brad Pitt and transplant my brain into his body, since my brain is me, then he would have no subsequent right to the body, and I would have committed no crime because the body is mine.

                    You're saying that such an entity -- that retains not only the ability to suffer but the memory and higher-brain function of its pre-decapitated state -- has less of a claim to personhood than a blastocyst?
                    Yes. The blastocyst is a self-contained and self-directed member of our species. The brain is only an organ that is being kept alive artificially. If the power goes out, the brain tissue dies. The blastocyst doesn't.
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    - Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      No, gametes if left alone won't develop into a human being, they are only haploid. Only when they fuse together to form a diploid zygote does it become a new organism.

                      And you say "person" is a philisophical term and then go straight into arguing for legal rights of "personhood"
                      Both have the potential to develop into a "human being" and neither are actual "human beings". Your distinction is not one that has a meaningful difference when it comes to potentiality.

                      Yes, law is a subset of philosophy -- law depends entirely on philosophical foundations. What we call "human rights" are legal protection that by definition rely on philosophical understanding of what constitutes "human" and what we mean when we use the word.

                      --Sam
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        Jim was. He distinguished between a preborn that HAD and DID NOT HAVE a functioning brain.



                        Sure. Let's go far fetched... If we decapitate someone, and can biologically alter their heart to keep itself beating without the medulla, and hook them up to a computer that can simulate communication, we can say they are a person without a brain. Want to go further? Let's say we figure out how to transplant brains, and I hire someone to kidnap Brad Pitt and transplant my brain into his body, since my brain is me, then he would have no subsequent right to the body, and I would have committed no crime because the body is mine.



                        Yes. The blastocyst is a self-contained and self-directed member of our species. The brain is only an organ that is being kept alive artificially. If the power goes out, the brain tissue dies. The blastocyst doesn't.
                        As explained before, we're not talking about a "functioning brain". You're saying "fully-functioning", which is not an argument being made by Jim or anyone else. What we're discussing here is the capacity for higher-level functionality. Or "sufficiently-functional".

                        You're simply mischaracterizing what Jim and others are saying.

                        You're arguing that a human body, artificially animated, is a person? You're arguing that you could do a "Face-Off" head swap with someone and your possession of their body makes you their person?

                        That's self-evidently absurd. You understand, like everyone else, that personhood is exhibited through consciousness, which resides in the brain. Animating a decapitated corpse doesn't confer the rights of personhood on that corpse and a "head in a jar", fully able to process sensation, execute higher-level brain function, and communicate to others could not be said to be less than a person. You're advocating situations that would lead to absurdities in practice.

                        --Sam
                        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                        Comment


                        • And I'll add that a blastocyst is "self contained" in the same way that a stem cell is "self contained". One is being argued as being a "person" while the other is not. Therefore, the operative factor in determining personhood cannot be it's self-containment.

                          And, yes, if the "power goes out", the blastocyst does indeed die.

                          --Sam
                          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            This is the argument that Sparko made and see above for my explanation concerning potentiality vs. actuality.

                            --Sam
                            Assuming a normal pregnancy, a developing fetus does not merely have the potential to develop brain function, it inevitably will. But this has nothing to do with why we should protect it. A fetus is not inherently valuable because of what it could be but because of what it is.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Assuming a normal pregnancy, a developing fetus does not merely have the potential to develop brain function, it inevitably will. But this has nothing to do with why we should protect it. A fetus is not inherently valuable because of what it could be but because of what it is.
                              Your first sentence describes what the word "potential" means.

                              The second sentence may or may not be true (I agree that is) but is immaterial to the question of what rights that valuable entity has. Specifically, value itself confers no rights and cannot supersede a person's rights. One might, for example, argue that fertility -- and by extension, sexual organs -- are valuable to society. That societal value, however, does not supersede a person's right to a vasectomy or hysterectomy.

                              The question of abortion is obviously more fraught than that but is bound by the same logical rules. If abortion is to be illegal, and not merely immoral, it will not be so by virtue of value.

                              --Sam
                              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                              Comment


                              • I said nothing about whether or not a fetus is of value to society. I said that it is inherently valuable in and of itself.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 05:11 PM
                                0 responses
                                20 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:25 AM
                                32 responses
                                192 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 01:48 PM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 03-17-2024, 11:56 AM
                                52 responses
                                275 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
                                77 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X