Subject:
|
Re: How to start a fire.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:14:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
266 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > He's not much of a debater then, is he? If you're really interested in
> > tackling this subject, I'm game.
> > The first point of contention is that a blastocyst is not a person, and the
> > elimination of a blastocyst is not the elimination of a person, innocent or
> > otherwise.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The second point of contention is that a sentient person is not the same as
> > a non-sentient person. That is, a pre-brain-functional human is not
> > equivalent to a brain-functional person. This is true even if the
> > pre-brain-functional person currently holds the office of President of the US.
>
> Disagree. Once the cell mass is discernably human and has a heartbeat it is a
> person. What about the mentally handicapped?
Who determines when it's discernably human? If I put a 64-cell embryo on your
desk, would you be able to tell me that it's human? Who do you identify as a
credible authority on determining humanness?
By pre-brain-functional, I refer to brains that have not yet begun to function
(and, for that matter, brains that have ceased to function, which would be post-
instead of pre-). The mentally handicapped are not in that category.
> > The third point of contention is that an innocent person with years of
> > experiences and memories is not the same as an innocent pre-person with zero
> > experiences or memories.
>
> So the age of a person determines their worth?
Careful--that's a straw man. I am saying that a pre-person (ie, one who is
not yet a person, or one who is a so-called "potential person") is not the same
as a person who has memories and experiences.
> > The fourth point of contention is that a fetus that does not have
> > independent physiological viability is not the same as a person who has
> > independent physiological viability.
>
> What about the physically handicapped?
If a person is wholly dependent upon artificial life support but is mentally
functional, then an outside agent does not have the right to end that person's
life, because the person is a person, with memories and experience.
If a person is wholly dependent upon artificial life support and is in a
persistent vegetative state, then that person's life support can be terminated
by an authorized actor on his behalf. At that point, the person's memories and
experiences are gone already.
> > How's that for starters?
>
> I belive freedom of choice is whether or not to have sex. If peopole do
> *anything* it is their responsibility to deal with the concequences. Murder
> to avoid inconvience is just sick.
That's a circular argument and a straw man.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: How to start a fire.
|
| (...) Once the cell mass has a heartbeat (which occurs after about 21 days) it is distinctly human. Prior to that the cell mass could technically become anything. (...) Maybe a DNA expert but it would be tough. (...) By your definition, not mine. (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: How to start a fire.
|
| (...) Agreed. (...) Disagree. Once the cell mass is discernably human and has a heartbeat it is a person. What about the mentally handicapped? (...) So the age of a person determines their worth? (...) What about the physically handicapped? (...) I (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
