Subject:
|
Re: How to start a fire.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:58:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
263 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> Probably a bad idea. By calling into question the definition of innocence,
> life, experience, and sentience, you're allowing an "in" that's off-topic.
> Fetuses are killed by civilian mothers and civilian doctors. The Iraqis in
> question were killed by US government military. The government's military
> actions are what's in question, not the actions of the citizenry who are
> merely 'allowed' by government to commit "murder".
>
> But, if you're looking to debate abortion, you're AOK. It's just by no means
> unploughed ground:
True enough. I'm taking it as an abortion debate separate from the Iraq
debate.
> (devil's advocate)
> #1 - a bastocyst (or whatnot) may be considered by some to be a person.
> You'll need to define "person" to the satisfaction of both you and your
> opponent to get anywhere here. But the more likely rebuttal will be 'person
> potential'.
I don't accept "person potential" because, with the advent of cloning, most
cells in your body have "person potential." It is not slippery slope reasoning
to equate washing one's face with terminating the gestation of an embryo.
Granted, this is currently a hypothetical example, but the point remains. If a
discarded skin cell can in theory be used to create a viable human being, then
how is that different from an embryo becoming a viable human being?
That, I think, is an underlying reason for the fury of the cloning debate
(which is, like stem-cell research, almost entirely a religious argument and
almost not at all a scientific debate).
> #2 - define 'sentient'. According to science, it's all just a system of
> chemical reactions that make up brain functions, just as in any sort of
> biological system. How complex does it need to be before it's
> considered 'sentient'? Or what characteristics must it take on? Either way,
> you'd have to come to an agreement before you could get anywhere.
Sentient, for these purposes, would probably best be described as higher brain
function. Which is to say sustained frontal cortex activity.
> #3 - experience != innoncence == kill-worthy? Should a baby who's about to be
> born in 3 seconds be able to be slaughtered because it's got no experiences?
> When do experiences exist? What defines memory? One might argue it's all
> chemical reactions at some level.
I'd say not at some level, but at *all* levels. Anyway, you'd be hard pressed
to find a baby with just three seconds of memories, since by the time of birth
the fetus would already have been experiencing higher brain functions, and
therefore memories.
> #4 - Siamese twins, anyone? Or how about coma victims? Define dependant.
If you're referring to conjoined twins, one of which is non-viable and is
essentially a parasite on the other, then there are several factors to consider.
1. Does the non-viable twin have functional cognition (ie, higher brain
function)
2. Does the non-viable twin have memories and experiences?
3. Is the non-viable twin a fatal drain upon the viable twin?
Number 3 is especially significant, because I don't know of any examples in
which one twin of a pair has been truly non-viable without leading rapidly to
the demise of the other. In that case, the non-viable twin should probably be
sacrificed to save the other, since failure to do so would doom both of them.
"Dependent," in this context, refers to an individual whose physiology is self
sufficient (ie, does not require direct, external assistance such as a placenta
or full life support) but who cannot necessarily "fend for oneself," such as a
newborn infant.
My points are intended to work in concert, rather than each on its own. In
the aggregate, they combine to present a picture of a human being that is more
thorough and realistic than a simple "life begins at conception" or "life begins
at birth" assertion.
> Anyway, good luck trying to argue abortion against a Pro-Lifer and succeed.
> Moral issues are seldom (almost never) debatable to the point of solving
> anything.
Very true. If the question is reduced to "when does the person have a soul"
then I have to walk away.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: How to start a fire.
|
| (...) I think that's what you'd end up debating, unless you're trying to create or debate law which defines the "acceptable" point for an abortion to take place. Then you'd argue the points you brought up. In general, I think the issue that (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: How to start a fire.
|
| (...) Probably a bad idea. By calling into question the definition of innocence, life, experience, and sentience, you're allowing an "in" that's off-topic. Fetuses are killed by civilian mothers and civilian doctors. The Iraqis in question were (...) (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
|
|
|
|
