Subject:
|
Re: How to start a fire.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 22:09:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
304 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> 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.
So you're in favor of embryonic stem-cell research? That's a tangential point
(purely for my own curiosity) but it meshes nicely with your overall argument.
Anyway, why is a heartbeat the deciding factor? What distinct difference
exists between pre-heartbeat and post-heartbeat, other than the heartbeat
itself? Is a heartbeat the primary determinor of human life? What if the heart
stops afterwards--is the person no longer a person? What if the heart is only
kept beating via external technological aid?
I should admit for the sake of good humor that I kept typing "heartbeet,"
which sounds like somekind of NewAge vegetable.
> > > 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.
>
> Not if it is known that the person will recover, or as should be the in case
> of a child, that it will be born.
Careful, that's a straw man, too. I've been using the term "fetus" to
describe an as-yet-unborn individual. If you refer instead to a child
as-yet-unborn, then that's not my argument, and I don't have to support it.
Anyway, there is no certainty whatsoever that a viable birth will occur, even
with today's medicine. If you're willing to accept the likelihood that the
birth will occur, then you must accept the likelihood that a vegetative person
will not recover, and therefore that the death of the vegetative person (a
"former" person as much as an embryo is a "pre" person) is acceptable.
> > > I belive freedom of choice is whether or not to have sex. If peopole do
> > > *anything* it is their responsibility to deal with the consequence. Murder
> > > to avoid inconvience is just sick.
> >
> > That's a circular argument and a straw man.
>
> Beliving people must live with the consequences of thier own choices,
> including the consequence of having sex, is a circular straw man?
No. Calling the termination of an embryo "murder" is equivalent to assuming
the conclusion of your argument. We are disputing whether an embryo/cell mass
qualifies a person, and therefore whether the termination of that embryo/cell
mass qualifies as murder. Your claim of "Murder to avoid inconvenience..."
simply assumes the conclusion without proving it. Therefore, the statement is
circular.
Besides which, I'm not making any claims of responsibility re: sex, so you're
attacking a straw man by requiring me to argue that point as if it were mine.
I would instead say that people who choose to terminate an embryo have chosen
to take responsibility for the consequences of having sex. The fact that their
choice is unpalatable to you is not relevant.
Besides which, you have at least several times advocated murder to avoid
inconvenience:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=15479
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=17509
Do you no longer advocate such murders of convenience?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: How to start a fire.
|
| (...) Yes. I also have no problem with someone taking the "after morning" pill within the first 2 weeks. (If someone waits longer than that it is their choice and they should deal with the consequeces of their choice.) (...) It is a trailing (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
