• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Can Roe v Wade be overturned?

Loren Pechtel said:
Someone in a permanent vegetative state does not meet #1, yet we consider them a person.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yet they are not a person by any reasonable definition. They were previously a person, and I think this is why we consider them to still be one.

Also, if the vegetative state is deemed to be permanent, they are not a potential person either.

As far as I'm aware, there is no situation or state which is like being a fetus. It's unique. We can analogise, but in the end there's nothing to closely compare it to.
 
I think we’re going about this the wrong way. We should be whispering in Republican ears that banning abortion will only produce more Democrats:

07D7E552-974A-4C8E-A074-3083E125531F.jpeg
 
bilby said:
Loren Pechtel said:
bilby said:
I think that view is accurate, but out of date. We fought a series of wars about it between 1861 and 1945. The result was that personhood is granted to all humans with functional brains. There are no 'subhumans', or 'potential humans'; Humans with functioning brains are considered persons (even if they are dark skinned, or Jewish); all others are not.

It's a socially ratified definition, but we have settled, after much bloodshed, on a socially ratified definition based only on simple biology.

The criteria for personhood are:

1) Has functioning brain
and
2) Is human

If you have 1 but not 2, you are an animal but not a person.

If you have 2 but not 1, you may be a corpse, or a fetus, or a tumour, or even a body part; but you are not a person.

If anyone wants to expand or contract this definition today, they're going to need a formidable armed force.
Click to expand...

Someone in a permanent vegetative state does not meet #1, yet we consider them a person.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. A permanent vegetative state is not brain death.
Click to expand...

Your #1 says "has functioning brain"--someone in a permanent vegetative state does not have a functioning brain.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
bilby said:
Yes, they do. A permanent vegetative state is not brain death.
Click to expand...

Your #1 says "has functioning brain"--someone in a permanent vegetative state does not have a functioning brain.
Click to expand...

That depends upon what I mean by 'functioning'.

Oddly, I consider myself to be more of an authority on the subject of 'what I think' than you are. :rolleyes:
 
ruby sparks said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Someone in a permanent vegetative state does not meet #1, yet we consider them a person.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yet they are not a person by any reasonable definition. They were previously a person, and I think this is why we consider them to still be one.

Also, if the vegetative state is deemed to be permanent, they are not a potential person either.

As far as I'm aware, there is no situation or state which is like being a fetus. It's unique. We can analogise, but in the end there's nothing to closely compare it to.
Click to expand...

Someone in a permanent vegetative state does have a functioning brain. It may not be functioning as well as the brains of most of the posters here or before whatever illness or injury that caused the permanent vegetative state. A permanent vegetative state is different than rain death which is what I believe Loren was thinking of. If someone is brain dead, in many if not all states, life support may be legally removed. This is not the case of someone in a permanent vegetative state.

In any case, both are still persons, although neither may have an existence that anyone of us would wish for ourselves or anyone we cared about. But someone in a permanent vegetative state may continue living with continued medical intervention.
 
Sure. If someone is brain dead, they're dead. The appropriate treatment is cremation or burial.

You might be able to keep their cardiac muscles or other tissues and organs alive for a while with various machines, but they are no longer a person, even if their tissues are human, and (apart from the brain), possibly alive too.

Brain death is death; Life support for a person in a persistent vegetative state is justified because there's a chance, however tiny, of recovery. But the only reason to keep a brain dead corpse's tissues alive is so they can be used for transplants. Or to reenact 'Weekend at Bernie's'.
 
The legal pundit say technically it can be overturned by SCOTUS, but unlikely.

There has to be a legal basis in the lower courts to enable SCOTUS to take a case on appeal. Plus the majority on both sides are pro abortion with limits, like late term abortion. It could be politically bad for conservatives.

Personally I oppose late term abortion except for medical reasons.
 
Toni said:
ruby sparks said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Someone in a permanent vegetative state does not meet #1, yet we consider them a person.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yet they are not a person by any reasonable definition. They were previously a person, and I think this is why we consider them to still be one.

Also, if the vegetative state is deemed to be permanent, they are not a potential person either.

As far as I'm aware, there is no situation or state which is like being a fetus. It's unique. We can analogise, but in the end there's nothing to closely compare it to.
Click to expand...

Someone in a permanent vegetative state does have a functioning brain. It may not be functioning as well as the brains of most of the posters here or before whatever illness or injury that caused the permanent vegetative state. A permanent vegetative state is different than rain death which is what I believe Loren was thinking of. If someone is brain dead, in many if not all states, life support may be legally removed. This is not the case of someone in a permanent vegetative state.

In any case, both are still persons, although neither may have an existence that anyone of us would wish for ourselves or anyone we cared about. But someone in a permanent vegetative state may continue living with continued medical intervention.
Click to expand...

They have a functioning brainstem. That doesn't mean a functioning brain.
 
ruby sparks said:
Half-Life said:
How late is too late?
Click to expand...

I don't know of a good case to not allow abortion (I don't mind calling it killing) of one of these:

View attachment 21554

And I don't know of a good case (although there are probably exceptions) to allow the abortion of a fetus that is close to term (or baby if you like, by then).

So it seems to me that saying the line should be drawn somewhere between the too is arguably the most sensible solution.
Click to expand...

That looks like you are showing me week 4 or 5 of pregnancy, which is BEFORE Georgia's law of 6 weeks.

Take a look at this:

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/

Notice week 6 you can start to see the baby forming. It seems Georgia's law got it right. Just look at all the pics from week 6 onward. How can anyone say "Killing that is OK. It's not a baby,?" It also refers to the baby as "baby" and not "fetus" in all the pics.
 
And one has the right to end the life of a person in a permanent vegetative state too.
ruby sparks said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Someone in a permanent vegetative state does not meet #1, yet we consider them a person.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yet they are not a person by any reasonable definition. They were previously a person, and I think this is why we consider them to still be one.

Also, if the vegetative state is deemed to be permanent, they are not a potential person either.

As far as I'm aware, there is no situation or state which is like being a fetus. It's unique. We can analogise, but in the end there's nothing to closely compare it to.
Click to expand...
 
You can if there was directive to do so.
Toni said:
ruby sparks said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Someone in a permanent vegetative state does not meet #1, yet we consider them a person.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yet they are not a person by any reasonable definition. They were previously a person, and I think this is why we consider them to still be one.

Also, if the vegetative state is deemed to be permanent, they are not a potential person either.

As far as I'm aware, there is no situation or state which is like being a fetus. It's unique. We can analogise, but in the end there's nothing to closely compare it to.
Click to expand...

Someone in a permanent vegetative state does have a functioning brain. It may not be functioning as well as the brains of most of the posters here or before whatever illness or injury that caused the permanent vegetative state. A permanent vegetative state is different than rain death which is what I believe Loren was thinking of. If someone is brain dead, in many if not all states, life support may be legally removed. This is not the case of someone in a permanent vegetative state.

In any case, both are still persons, although neither may have an existence that anyone of us would wish for ourselves or anyone we cared about. But someone in a permanent vegetative state may continue living with continued medical intervention.
Click to expand...
 
Half-Life said:
Playball40 said:
Uh, it's not human. It's an elephant.
Click to expand...

If you look at the link I provided in my post, it looks a human baby as well.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly the point.

What you think it looks like is a very poor guide indeed to whether or not you can call it a 'person'.

If your criteria are so misguided that a completely accurate description of it is 'sickening' to you, then you have a serious problem with your means of determining what is or is not real.

You are emoting, when you need to be thinking.

That's going to lead you into any number of very serious mistakes - as you just demonstrated.
 
Half-Life said:
bilby said:
View attachment 21690

Anyone who claims that this is a 'person' is an idiot.
Click to expand...

It can feel pain and has a brain at that point. I can even see the eyes. To say that is not a baby is sickening to me.
Click to expand...

1) As others have pointed out it's not human. Looks can be deceiving.

2) To feel pain requires a functioning brain. There's some brain tissue, it is not a functioning brain. There can be no sensation of pain because there's nothing to perceive it as pain.

3) A simple test of whether it can feel pain--needle strikes with amniocentesis. The fetus does not react.
 
steve_bank said:
The legal pundit say technically it can be overturned by SCOTUS, but unlikely.

There has to be a legal basis in the lower courts to enable SCOTUS to take a case on appeal. Plus the majority on both sides are pro abortion with limits, like late term abortion. It could be politically bad for conservatives.

Personally I oppose late term abortion except for medical reasons.
Click to expand...

They don't NEED a legal basis, they just have to say they have a legal basis. Since there's no higher legal authority, whatever they say goes and they can decide that whatever spurious reason they want is a valid one.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
steve_bank said:
The legal pundit say technically it can be overturned by SCOTUS, but unlikely.

There has to be a legal basis in the lower courts to enable SCOTUS to take a case on appeal. Plus the majority on both sides are pro abortion with limits, like late term abortion. It could be politically bad for conservatives.

Personally I oppose late term abortion except for medical reasons.
Click to expand...

They don't NEED a legal basis, they just have to say they have a legal basis. Since there's no higher legal authority, whatever they say goes and they can decide that whatever spurious reason they want is a valid one.
Click to expand...
My point in the OP was that it isn’t exactly that simple as just saying there is a legal basis could cause issues with other cases. They could just ham fist it of course, but that risks the legitimacy of SCOTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom