Roe v Wade is on deck

[Lion IRC]

Killing.
That's the word which is at the heart of the abortion debate.

No matter how hard you try to dehumanise the unborn baby, the disabled person, the Jew, the negro slave you call chattel, the Downs Syndrome sufferer, the quadriplegic, the Covid-19 patient on life support, the parasite....
there is a clear medically - scientifically - defined line in the sand that is crossed when you "kill" a living human.

Is something that does not have a brain a human?

Non human species have brains so I don't think that's a useful distinction

 

[untermensche]

Killing.
That's the word which is at the heart of the abortion debate.

No matter how hard you try to dehumanise the unborn baby, the disabled person, the Jew, the negro slave you call chattel, the Downs Syndrome sufferer, the quadriplegic, the Covid-19 patient on life support, the parasite....
there is a clear medically - scientifically - defined line in the sand that is crossed when you "kill" a living human.

Is something that does not have a brain a human?

Non human species have brains so I don't think that's a useful distinction

Non human species are not humans.

We kill cows and chickens by the millions.

Is something that does not have a brain a human?

Talking about some other species is a deflection.

 

[Toni]

Non human species have brains so I don't think that's a useful distinction

Non human species are not humans.

We kill cows and chickens by the millions.

Is something that does not have a brain a human?

Talking about some other species is a deflection.

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdef...ly is a serious birth,part of the neural tube).

 

[Lion IRC]

Non human species have brains so I don't think that's a useful distinction

Non human species are not humans.

We kill cows and chickens by the millions.

Is something that does not have a brain a human?

Talking about some other species is a deflection.

I'm just making the point that using the brain / no brain a distinction doesn't help because then you're blurring the line between species which have brains.

If you want to compartmentalise the question and ignore reference to non-human species with brains, and philosophically question whether brain = human, then you haven't really advanced the issue because brain death is more about being a dead human rather than a non-human.

You also run into the quicksand of when a collection of brain cells in an unborn baby can be called "a brain". And then we're back to arguing over definitions.

THAT'S not a brain. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is....
THAT'S not a person. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No IT isn't, everyone knows negroes, Jews, embryos, untermenschen aren't people

 

[untermensche]

Non human species have brains so I don't think that's a useful distinction

Non human species are not humans.

We kill cows and chickens by the millions.

Is something that does not have a brain a human?

Talking about some other species is a deflection.

I'm just making the point that using the brain / no brain a distinction doesn't help because then you're blurring the line between species which have brains.

The topic of abortion is only about humans.

Nothing is blurred if I ask about humans.

Your worthless dodge is noted.

Is something that has no brain a human?

Not something with only a partial brain.

Something living with no brain at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Killing.
That's the word which is at the heart of the abortion debate.

No matter how hard you try to dehumanise the unborn baby, the disabled person, the Jew, the negro slave you call chattel, the Downs Syndrome sufferer, the quadriplegic, the Covid-19 patient on life support, the parasite....
there is a clear medically - scientifically - defined line in the sand that is crossed when you "kill" a living human.

Killing matters? We should be concerned because this morning the lab took out a bit of my wife and killed it? (Routine blood work.)

 

[Lion IRC]

The topic of abortion is only about humans.

Yes, so we should keep our disambiguation focussed on characteristics which are uniquely human. Having a brain is not what distinguishes the right to life. If it did, we ought not kill (abort) any living creature with "a brain".
Furthermore, brain dead corpses have brains. See how your extant brain distinction blurs the lines.

Nothing is blurred if I ask about humans.

Of course it's blurred.
You're asking what defines a human. If the lines weren't blurred, you would be telling me, not asking me.

Your worthless dodge is noted.

No I don't think you HAVE noted correctly.
I'm not dodging your question. I'm deconstructing it.

Is something that has no brain a human?

Define human, then we'll talk. Define brain, then we'll talk.
See what I did there?

I'm telling you, your brain / no brain dichotomy doesn't help.
My clock on the mantelpiece doesn't have a brain.
Therefore... WHAT?
The cadaver has a brain.
Therefore...WHAT?

Not something with only a partial brain.

Something living with no brain at all.

The moment crow tells Ray Bolger that his life has no worth.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, so we should keep our disambiguation focussed on characteristics which are uniquely human.

That is an irrational pathetic dodge.

We can rationally focus on ANYTHING that makes something a human.

The human brain is definitely something that makes something a human. A cat's brain makes something a cat.

Something without a brain is not human.

It is an unthinking blob of cells. If it is not living as a parasite within a woman it is not alive.

It is nothing that deserves rights or my concern.

What do we do next? Give plants the same rights as humans with brains?

Define human, then we'll talk.

Irrational non sequitur.

I am not fully defining a human.

I am giving one necessary feature.

No brain = no human.

No brain when not a parasite = dead.

 

[untermensche]

There is no moral imperative to care about a parasite with no brain.

 

[TomC]

Killing.
That's the word which is at the heart of the abortion debate.

No matter how hard you try to dehumanise the unborn baby, the disabled person, the Jew, the negro slave you call chattel, the Downs Syndrome sufferer, the quadriplegic, the Covid-19 patient on life support, the parasite....
there is a clear medically - scientifically - defined line in the sand that is crossed when you "kill" a living human.

You have no obligation to keep any of those alive by being forced to donate the use of your organs against your will. Refusing to donte the use of your organs may result in them dying. You may even choose to call that “killing.”

Nevertheless, you are not obliged to donate your body to anyone for use of your blood, tissue or organs.

I can see why you would keep dodging this fact, and instead choose to talk about emotional words like “killing” and “baby” in the hopes that they will paper over your desired to take ownership of other people’s bodies and direct their use against their will.

This isn't so much a fact as an irrelevant analogy. What makes it irrelevant is the lack of choice or responsibility on the part of the donor. Expecting Joe to donate an organ to Bill, just because Bill needs one, is morally very different from expecting Joe to donate if he'd chosen something that resulted in Bill's organ failure. But that never happens. It's so unlikely that the same person both caused the organ failure and is the best organ donor that it's probably never happened since organ transplants became possible.

That's really different from having sex and making a baby. That happens all the time.

A better analogy is this. A motorist who hits a pedestrian with her car, causing life threatening injuries. It doesn't matter where she was driving or why. It doesn't matter if she was being careful. When she put her car in gear, she was taking responsibility for possible outcomes, even remote possibilities for which she wasn't prepared. She could have stayed home or found other transportation, but she chose to drive.
There is one huge difference. Nobody wants the motorist to personally provide emergency, medical, job coverage or any such thing. Other people are far better trained and equipped to do it. Motorist is just expected to pay. But paying is a moral obligation. If she doesn't have insurance, her assets will be seized and wages garnished, even if that's terribly inconvenient and burdensome. The moral calculus here isn't hard to understand.

And if she decides that taking responsibility is just too inconvenient and burdensome, so drives away leaving the pedestrian to die on the pavement, that's another whole moral choice. I'm sure you understand that one.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

If you want to compartmentalise the question and ignore reference to non-human species with brains, and philosophically question whether brain = human, then you haven't really advanced the issue because brain death is more about being a dead human rather than a non-human.

You also run into the quicksand of when a collection of brain cells in an unborn baby can be called "a brain". And then we're back to arguing over definitions.

THAT'S not a brain. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is....
THAT'S not a person. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No IT isn't, everyone knows negroes, Jews, embryos, untermenschen aren't people

The discussion is around Human + cognition.
It has always been. The red herring that you drag across the trail does not change the point of the discussion.

 

[Rhea]

Killing.
That's the word which is at the heart of the abortion debate.

No matter how hard you try to dehumanise the unborn baby, the disabled person, the Jew, the negro slave you call chattel, the Downs Syndrome sufferer, the quadriplegic, the Covid-19 patient on life support, the parasite....
there is a clear medically - scientifically - defined line in the sand that is crossed when you "kill" a living human.

You have no obligation to keep any of those alive by being forced to donate the use of your organs against your will. Refusing to donte the use of your organs may result in them dying. You may even choose to call that “killing.”

Nevertheless, you are not obliged to donate your body to anyone for use of your blood, tissue or organs.

I can see why you would keep dodging this fact, and instead choose to talk about emotional words like “killing” and “baby” in the hopes that they will paper over your desired to take ownership of other people’s bodies and direct their use against their will.

This isn't so much a fact as an irrelevant analogy. What makes it irrelevant is the lack of choice or responsibility on the part of the donor. Expecting Joe to donate an organ to Bill, just because Bill needs one, is morally very different from expecting Joe to donate if he'd chosen something that resulted in Bill's organ failure. But that never happens. It's so unlikely that the same person both caused the organ failure and is the best organ donor that it's probably never happened since organ transplants became possible.

That's really different from having sex and making a baby. That happens all the time.

A better analogy is this. A motorist who hits a pedestrian with her car, causing life threatening injuries. It doesn't matter where she was driving or why. It doesn't matter if she was being careful. When she put her car in gear, she was taking responsibility for possible outcomes, even remote possibilities for which she wasn't prepared. She could have stayed home or found other transportation, but she chose to drive.
There is one huge difference. Nobody wants the motorist to personally provide emergency, medical, job coverage or any such thing. Other people are far better trained and equipped to do it. Motorist is just expected to pay. But paying is a moral obligation. If she doesn't have insurance, her assets will be seized and wages garnished, even if that's terribly inconvenient and burdensome. The moral calculus here isn't hard to understand.

And if she decides that taking responsibility is just too inconvenient and burdensome, so drives away leaving the pedestrian to die on the pavement, that's another whole moral choice. I'm sure you understand that one.
Tom

No. I specifically included the possibility - however remote - that the motorist is a match for what the victim needs.

You have chosen to act as if I have not said this repeatedly.

Even in this remote case, it is STILL THE LAW that the motorist who caused the accident and who is capable of saving the life of the victim through the use of his organs, even if it is just blood or a skin graft from an ample buttock, IS NOT OBLIGED TO DO SO, even if it results in the death of the victim whose need he personally caused.

He is not even required to test to see if he is a donor match.. There is absolutely, positively - regardless of culpability - NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT for the perpetrator to donate any part or use of his body to maintain another person’s life.

You can’t dodge by saying it is remote. Because it is not allowed no matter what, even if the perpetrator is also dying and harvesting his organs before death could save the victim. Even then, the victim is not entitled to the useful organs from his fresh corpse. The victim is not even entitled to have them tested to see if they are a match. They have no right at all to another person’s body.

 

[Toni]

This isn't so much a fact as an irrelevant analogy. What makes it irrelevant is the lack of choice or responsibility on the part of the donor. Expecting Joe to donate an organ to Bill, just because Bill needs one, is morally very different from expecting Joe to donate if he'd chosen something that resulted in Bill's organ failure. But that never happens. It's so unlikely that the same person both caused the organ failure and is the best organ donor that it's probably never happened since organ transplants became possible.

That's really different from having sex and making a baby. That happens all the time.

A better analogy is this. A motorist who hits a pedestrian with her car, causing life threatening injuries. It doesn't matter where she was driving or why. It doesn't matter if she was being careful. When she put her car in gear, she was taking responsibility for possible outcomes, even remote possibilities for which she wasn't prepared. She could have stayed home or found other transportation, but she chose to drive.
There is one huge difference. Nobody wants the motorist to personally provide emergency, medical, job coverage or any such thing. Other people are far better trained and equipped to do it. Motorist is just expected to pay. But paying is a moral obligation. If she doesn't have insurance, her assets will be seized and wages garnished, even if that's terribly inconvenient and burdensome. The moral calculus here isn't hard to understand.

And if she decides that taking responsibility is just too inconvenient and burdensome, so drives away leaving the pedestrian to die on the pavement, that's another whole moral choice. I'm sure you understand that one.
Tom

No. I specifically included the possibility - however remote - that the motorist is a match for what the victim needs.

You have chosen to act as if I have not said this repeatedly.

Even in this remote case, it is STILL THE LAW that the motorist who caused the accident and who is capable of saving the life of the victim through the use of his organs, even if it is just blood or a skin graft from an ample buttock, IS NOT OBLIGED TO DO SO, even if it results in the death of the victim whose need he personally caused.

He is not even required to test to see if he is a donor match.. There is absolutely, positively - regardless of culpability - NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT for the perpetrator to donate any part or use of his body to maintain another person’s life.

You can’t dodge by saying it is remote. Because it is not allowed no matter what, even if the perpetrator is also dying and harvesting his organs before death could save the victim. Even then, the victim is not entitled to the useful organs from his fresh corpse. The victim is not even entitled to have them tested to see if they are a match. They have no right at all to another person’s body.

But but but an accident victim is not an innocent blastula or zygote.

 

[Rhea]

But but but an accident victim is not an innocent blastula or zygote.

Or, more the point, the perpetrator is not a slut (or, you know, a married woman who does not want more kids, but apparently I repeat myself.)

 

[Lion IRC]

There is no moral imperative to care about a parasite with no brain.

Well, since unborn babies have brains they are safe, right?
And since they are human, they are not parasites. We surely wouldn't label a fellow human - a parasite.

ETA - interesting fact. In Germany during the Third Reich, medical students did not take the Hippocratic Oath - Do no harm

 

[Rhea]

There is no moral imperative to care about a parasite with no brain.

Well, since unborn babies have brains they are safe, right?

A working brain. In other words, capable of cognition.

 

[untermensche]

There is no moral imperative to care about a parasite with no brain.

Well, since unborn babies have brains they are safe, right?
And since they are human, they are not parasites. We surely wouldn't label a fellow human - a parasite.

ETA - interesting fact. In Germany during the Third Reich, medical students did not take the Hippocratic Oath - Do no harm

At what age does the parasite have a brain?

 

[laughing dog]

Well, since unborn babies have brains they are safe, right?

If you are referring to zygotes, blastulas and fetuses, they do not have functioning brains - they are not persons.

And since they are human, they are not parasites. We surely wouldn't label a fellow human - a parasite.

There are plenty of people who are parasites. For example, in the USA, church organizations are parasites since they do not pay taxes but expect and receive the same police and fire protection from taxpayers.

 

[untermensche]

Only arbitrary definitions of 'parasite' that do not include humans are allowed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is no moral imperative to care about a parasite with no brain.

Well, since unborn babies have brains they are safe, right?
And since they are human, they are not parasites. We surely wouldn't label a fellow human - a parasite.

ETA - interesting fact. In Germany during the Third Reich, medical students did not take the Hippocratic Oath - Do no harm

The brain does not start to function until the 7th month at the earliest. (We do not know when it switches on, we know it can't switch on before that.)