A Call for Consistency

[carpedm9587]

If someone makes a poor choice and is not paying attention to the road because they wanted to check their text messages and injures or kills someone, do they have to face the consequences of their actions?

We all have to be responsible for our "poor choices" - especially if it results in the death of someone else. And yes you can protect the rights of one individual by compromising the rights of another. That is what laws do all the time. Especially when it comes to the life of one person versus the inconvenience of another. If you come across the scene of an accident and see someone bleeding to death you can't just leave them because it is inconvenient to you and you need to be somewhere, for example. It is at the minimum "depraved indifference"

Yes - they do - but in such a context they are not dealing with a "contingent" life.

I know you folks want to ignore the fact that this life ios NOT VIABLE without the continue sustaining and support of the mother - and there is no other choice - but that is the reality of it.

It changes the equation.

[carpedm9587]

So it is a living human.

And personhood is subjective, and human being does not necessarily lead to personhood.

See my other responses on this point. I've been accused (justifiably) of repeating myself.

[Sparko]

A human finger is human - it has the human genome
A human finger is living (life) - it can reproduce cells.

Is it a human life?

An embryo is human - it has the human genome
An embryo is living (life) - it can replicate cells, as long as it remains connected to the woman

Is it a human life? Or is it merely another part of the woman's body?



:grasshopper: (we really need a grasshopper emoji! :angry: (and we need an angry emogi!)

An embryo is a complete and distinct human being at a specific stage of it's life. A finger is not.

[carpedm9587]

that my friend, is known as being "weaselly"

We know what innocent means: Having done nothing to deserve death. As opposed to sentencing a murderer.
A human means one of the species homo sapiens.
Life means biologically active, growing, as opposed to decaying and dead. An individual human life in this instance that has the same ability to grow and reproduce as any other human being.

So my response with the finger parallel. It meets all your criteria.

[Zymologist]

Yes - they do - but in such a context they are not dealing with a "contingent" life.

I know you folks want to ignore the fact that this life ios NOT VIABLE without the continue sustaining and support of the mother - and there is no other choice - but that is the reality of it.

It changes the equation.

I don't think viability can be made the measure of personhood, because of technology's impact on premature viability.

[Sparko]

A fertilized embryo in a petrie dish will not survive if left untreated.

How is this different?

Because it can be saved. Just implant it. You can't save the child in an ectopic pregnancy. At least not yet. Once we can then it would be immoral to kill it out of convenience.

[rogue06]

A fertilized embryo in a petrie dish will not survive if left untreated.

How is this different?

Someone in a coma will not survive if left untreated. I guess that means they don't count as being human

[Sparko]

Yes - they do - but in such a context they are not dealing with a "contingent" life.

I know you folks want to ignore the fact that this life ios NOT VIABLE without the continue sustaining and support of the mother - and there is no other choice - but that is the reality of it.

It changes the equation.

No it doesn't. As I have said, the infant's life is contingent on others too. So is the accident victim you come across in my previous example. You can't just let someone die if you can prevent it. That's the law. Not only that, but it is immoral to do so. Even if it is inconvenient for you.

If some mad scientist knocked me and you out and took out your heart and connected me and you together so that your life was dependent on me and my heart, I could not just disconnect you and let you die. I would have to remain connected to you until such a time that they could give you a heart transplant. Even though the situation was not my choice or fault to begin with. I can't morally or even legally just decide to kill you because I am "enslaved" to you by some mad scientist (named rogue06)

[Jedidiah]

I am very curious as to how you distinguish between them. If I am uncomfortable with my toe, feel it will compromise the quality of my life, enjoy walking without shoes, I am deciding to procede with the toe surgery - I am making a medical decision to impact my quality of life. If I have cancer, I am deciding to have or not have chemotherapy as a consequence of the quality of life I wish to have - so I am deciding to have (or not have) a medical procedure - which is a medical decision. Likewise, a woman who elects to have an abortion, brings a set of criteria to bear than then decides whether or not to have a particulaer medical procedure, which is a medical decision.

How exactly are you distinguishing between these?

In comparatively rare cases, such an ectopic pregnancies, it is a medical decision. To make such a decision based upon a supposed compromise of quality of life (in a word 'convenience") is in no way a medical decision.

[Jedidiah]

By that logic you would be okay with rape victims getting an abortion.

A totally separate issue.

[Jedidiah]

That it has a human genome is acknowledged. But a dead body also has a human genome. Indeed, it will have a genome well into its decay. We can even find human genome in bones of centuries dead individual. An amputeted leg will have a human genome. If you are arguing that the presence of a genome confers rights under the law, I think you are going to have a hard time. So, if it is not about the genome, the question is, when is it a "person?" Under the law, it is a "person" that has legal rights. Indeed, one can make the case that it is a "person" that has moral rights. I do not think a severed finger has moral rights.

This is a phony argument. A dead human has no rights, a dead human leg has no rights, an ancient bone has no rights. This does not in any way reflect upon the rights of a living human being.

[Mountain Man]

I love it when someone claims to be pro-life, then proceeds to roll out every pro-abortion argument in the book.

[Jedidiah]

Morally - I agree with you. Legally - I do not, for reasons cited in my other posts.

For most of the history of this nation the law agreed with the morality. It is only liberal activist judges that have made the difference in this sad age.

[Jedidiah]

Furthermore - the law deals with "persons." That was the whole basis for citizen's united. So you also have to show, legally, that it is a person.

The concept of personhood has only one function, to rationalize killing of an innocent baby.

[Jedidiah]

You assume Premise 2, Zym. The reason is this:

1) What does it mean to be innocent?
2) What does it mean to be human?
3) What does it mean to be life?

That an embryo is innocent in contestable, IMO. It does not have the power of choice, so it cannot have made a bad one (of course, for those who adhere to the concept of original sin, they cannot claim the embryo is "innocent."

That it is human is true if your definition of "human" is "possessing a human genome."

So the definition hinges on the word "life." What exactly is "life?" Is it the cellular ability to create new cells? Then the embryo has it - and so does the severed finger (for a while). So should the severed finger have all the rights of a person until it looses this ability? Is it the ability to procreate? Then a 3 year old is not life. However you define this term (and this has been a philosophical argument for millenia), you end up with some problems.

And we still cannot escape the fact that U.S. Law (and most legal codes) are not about "life," they are about "personhood." This is why citizens unitied equated a "company" with a "person," which is rooted in Roman and English law, and why we will eventually confront the issue of what to do with a sentient artificial intelligence..

Baloney no matter how thin you slice it.