Moral Relativity/societal/abortion

[jessiac]

Heya....

This is my journal. I have got into one helluva long debate over ad, so I asked the person I was debating with over to my journal.

If you want to join in the argument, feel free. But be nice. And courteous. Cos it's my journal.

Gotta go, will update/edit tomm, since mum is yelling at me to get off the comp.

Comments

[jessiac]

For the same reason why tattoes to not disappear after 7 years.

What do you define as a person? If it could function in every a way human could, then yes, I would define it as a person.

'Definitely' has been used far to much in the medical world. There have been cases of patients thought dead coming round in the morgue. In those cases the brain lasted a little longer. Or they hallucinated before they died - how could you tell when you saw the vision?

Babies have been born in this state. They have no brain except for the bit that controls non-voluntry reflexes - breathing, blinking. They usually die in a few hours. It cannot be reversed. Someone who is brain dead is dead. Nothing but their body remains. You do not need a court order to switch someone off in this state, you just need the consent of the responsible adult (infact, if none is around all you need is a competant authority, I believe.). In a coma, your brain is not dead, just dormant. They can spark it back to life by trying various therapies. These may/may not work in some cases. Eventually they may have to be removed from life support.

[magicalyak]

What do you define as a person? If it could function in every a way human could, then yes, I would define it as a person.
A human being is a human person. A person is one that has the natural inherent capacity to perform personal acts. The unborn do not have the current capacity, but they do have the inherent capacity. Furthermore, person is defined so many different ways that we really need to ascertain its significance. Is a human being worthy of protection, or do we need some modifiers?

'Definitely' has been used far to much in the medical world. There have been cases of patients thought dead coming round in the morgue. In those cases the brain lasted a little longer. Or they hallucinated before they died - how could you tell when you saw the vision?
Can't prove negatives, can't prove they didn't. And of course, if we aren't sure as to whether something is alive, then we don't kill it. We err on the side of caution.

Babies have been born in this state. They have no brain except for the bit that controls non-voluntry reflexes - breathing, blinking. They usually die in a few hours. It cannot be reversed. Someone who is brain dead is dead. Nothing but their body remains. You do not need a court order to switch someone off in this state, you just need the consent of the responsible adult (infact, if none is around all you need is a competant authority, I believe.). In a coma, your brain is not dead, just dormant. They can spark it back to life by trying various therapies. These may/may not work in some cases. Eventually they may have to be removed from life support.
You are describing enancephaltic babies (monsters) and whether they are human being or not. Well, this is debateable and certainly arguable. However, it would appear as if the anencephalitic baby were a human being, albeit, severely abnormal. Furthermore, these babies hardly ever survive after birth and almost all die after a few days.

[jessiac]

No, a person is someone who does act perform personal acts. The unborn do not have this. They therefore are not accorded the same rights as born humans, who do. As you know, I am against abortion after reasonable viability (ie, survive birth/cesaerean section, has a chance of survival without severe brain damage) except in cases where the continuing pregnancy would cause serious health problems to the mother or cause her to die, or if the fetus has a serious defect, because I believe that as the fetus is at a stage where it does not totally depend on the mother for life then it should be accorded some protection, and it is capable of living without the mother kindly lending her organs for its survival.

But it is still dependent on the mother, so her life comes above and beyond the fetus's until birth. And if during birth it is a choice between mother or child, unless the mother states otherwise, the mother should be saved.

Why? It has no inherent capacity to act in a personal way. It has no capacity to act in a personal way. Just a zygote does not have the capacity to act in a personal way. Doctors often 'help' the babies to die, so as not to prolong anguish to the parents.

[magicalyak]

No, a person is someone who does act perform personal acts. The unborn do not have this. They therefore are not accorded the same rights as born humans, who do. As you know, I am against abortion after reasonable viability (ie, survive birth/cesaerean section, has a chance of survival without severe brain damage) except in cases where the continuing pregnancy would cause serious health problems to the mother or cause her to die, or if the fetus has a serious defect, because I believe that as the fetus is at a stage where it does not totally depend on the mother for life then it should be accorded some protection, and it is capable of living without the mother kindly lending her organs for its survival.
We can define person any way we want. But I wuld say it has the inherent capacity (which is the same as a human being, in this case).
Now, as for the cases after viability, I don't see how you can support any reason, other than being able to kill the mother, as a valid circumstance to kill the child (which is viable at this point). Isn't this the same as telling a born person they can die if they had the same effect on people?

But it is still dependent on the mother, so her life comes above and beyond the fetus's until birth. And if during birth it is a choice between mother or child, unless the mother states otherwise, the mother should be saved.
I don't see how it is above, why can't they be equal? What does above mean? What is the life "ranking", so to speak?

Why? It has no inherent capacity to act in a personal way. It has no capacity to act in a personal way. Just a zygote does not have the capacity to act in a personal way. Doctors often 'help' the babies to die, so as not to prolong anguish to the parents.
It has the inherent capacity, it doesn't have the present, active capacity to do them. For example, if rem sleep is the criteria for personhood and someone was born in a coma (a reversible one) at birth, would this be a valid reason to terminate their life, because they don't have the present capacity to function as a person?

[jessiac]

I see it as having the capacity. Well, seeing as the fetus is still living off the mother, it's life should still be ranked below that of hers. The minute it is not, it's a human. It has rights. A born person does not live off someone elses body.

Well, someone in a coma still dreams - I see that as personal. Put it like this: once you have the capacity, when you lose it by going into a reversible coma you should still be defined as a human being. Once your brain dead, you're human, but not a human being.

[magicalyak]

Well, someone in a coma still dreams - I see that as personal. Put it like this: once you have the capacity, when you lose it by going into a reversible coma you should still be defined as a human being. Once your brain dead, you're human, but not a human being.
Hmm...I'll have to think about this a bit more. Can I pose the hypothetical of a person who can't dream being born in such a state?

[jessiac]

Well, that would be almost impossible, and so a bit pointless to debate. But someone would have to ascertain that said person's coma was reversible.

[magicalyak]

So if I could find a person who fit this (I think I might be able to, which is most probably not able to dream), then you would abandon this tenet? I'd find a person who was born in a coma that couldn't dream and awoke from the coma after birth.

[jessiac]

And then had full mental faculties? I would think that that would be so rare as to be negligible.

[magicalyak]

And then had full mental faculties? I would think that that would be so rare as to be negligible.

It's a hypothetical, but a valid question.

[jessiac]

If they were capable of sentience later on, and this could be determined, then they should be kept alive. If it cannot be determined, it is most likely that the child is brain dead, so to withdraw life support would be to simply to kill its body.

[magicalyak]

If they were capable of sentience later on, and this could be determined, then they should be kept alive. If it cannot be determined, it is most likely that the child is brain dead, so to withdraw life support would be to simply to kill its body.
What are you defining as brain dead? For example, in most stages of the unborn's life, the unborn exhibits a controlled total body response mechanism to pain stimuli. This appears as evidence of a nervous system (which many would regard as alive). Do you mean the frontal lobes? The brain stem? The medulla oblongata?

[jessiac]

Reflexes exist even within those who have no higher brain function. I would say when the fetus has brain waves similar to that of a newborn.

[magicalyak]

Reflexes exist even within those who have no higher brain function. I would say when the fetus has brain waves similar to that of a newborn.

You don't see this as being arbitrary?

[jessiac]

No.

We're really debating pointlessly here.

It's got to the point of trite one line replies.

Why not start a new thread on your lj about the existance/non existance of God? I'd be more interested in debating that at the mo, since that is what I am doing in relgious education at school.

[magicalyak]

Will do soon.