Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Christianity Today Op Ed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Thank you -- this is why "nit-picking" terminology is important.

    You say a brain-dead patient is "still a human being". However, we do not require the consent of a brain-dead patient to terminate life support. We do this because we recognize that brain-dead patients no longer possess the qualities that confer the rights which demand a person's consent. So there must, by necessity, be some other factor that confers personhood and rights than the property "is a human organism".
    aaaaand we are back to talking about legal terms.

    The brain dead "patient" is still a human being. And his unplugging does require someone with the legal power of attorney to disconnect him. If he were just an object at that point, no permission would be required. They could just chop him up for parts without permission. And again, a brain dead person is someone who can't recover. So not like an embryo.



    Stem cells can, in fact, grow into a human organism -- we've already done so with mice.
    Only by taking the DNA from the stem cell and placing it into an emptied ovum. At which point it becomes a clone zygote and again, a distinct organism that can grow into adulthood.

    It has the same "potential toward personhood" as does a zygote.
    No it doesn't. It take intervention and a lot of twiddling to do so. But once it does become a zygote, then it is no longer potential, it IS an organism of whatever species it came from. Just like a sperm or an ovum. Once fertilized as a zygote, it becomes a distinct individual. Nothing potential about it. It might be a potential adult, but then so is an infant.

    If your distinction is "natural environment" then you concede that some external factor, not an inherent property, separates the potential between a zygote in utero from a zygote in a dish or, indeed, a stem cell. And, that being the case, means that the quality of personhood (or "being") is not found inherently in a zygote.
    again, no it doesn't. The inherent quality that makes it a person or being is that it is a distinct and full member of the human race.

    This is all complicated stuff and it's going to necessarily involve getting "nit-picky" with precise concepts and terms if one wants to have a good, rational argument. It's also why very few people bother with getting that far into the real debate.

    --Sam
    No, it is just a debate strategy with some abortionists like yourself who want to muddy the waters with various detached terms, so you don't have to admit that you are killing a human being.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      I would say that just because aborting the fetus prior to it having conscious awareness does not make it right or good. This forming child will be a human person, of infinite worth and value, and stopping that process for trivial reasons is wrong.

      You may find that 'weak', but a lie is never a strong defense. And telling the person this 1 month old fetus without a brain or any level of conscious thought is the same as a 6 month gestation fetus with a brain and some rudimentary level of conscious thought and perception of its world is simply a lie.
      As would be saying an infant has the same level of conscious thought and perception as an adult. Doesn't mean it is not just as valuable a member of the human race.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        That is just poor logic. Saying the zygote is a (1) human being when it may well become two or three DIFFERENT human beings is simply incorrect. At that point it is not yet a human being. And in fact, it is not fully determined what human being it will become - physically or mentally. The 'mind' and the personality is not just the physical mass of neurons in the brain, but rather both how they interconnect and how they interact and respond to their environment. (note that in the case of twins or triplets they are DIFFERENT human beings not because of any significant difference in their DNA but because the way the brain forms and how the neural nets develop - which is not controlled solely by the DNA but rather - and by design - in significant part a response to the environment)
        Jim, if I had a transporter like on star trek and it malfunctioned when you went in and duplicated you, you would become two people. Identical at first but as time went on, more and more individualistic. You would be two different human beings. Twins. That doesn't mean that before the malfunction you were not a human being.

        One human being becoming two doesn't negate the fact that it is still one human being before the split.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          I am not going to nitpick terminology with you Sam. We both know what we are talking about, despite your desperate hand waving. We are talking about an individual HUMAN LIFE. Humans are "beings" are they not? Even a brain dead one is still a human being. Even a corpse is still a human being, albeit a dead one.

          A new human organism begins with fertilization. And yes it is still a human being in a petri dish. It is not in it's natural habitat, a womb, so while it can still grow for a bit, it will eventually die if not implanted. That doesn't mean it isn't a human. A stem cell can't grow into a human organism. At best it could be made to grow into some tissue or an organ (they are still working on that)
          Sparko - this is not a simple discussion and you can't reduce it to simple terms beyond a certain point. Sam is doing a good job of defining the necessary distinctions. A human person is more than just a few human cells. A zygote becomes a human person.

          Consider if the brain never forms in the developing zygote->fetus. A fetus without a brain is not a person legally or any other way. Yet you define it a person before it has that which is necessary for personhood! Would you then confer 'provisional personhood' on it, then take it away because of what never was? That is convoluted and irrational. Logically, the zygote can't be what it is not yet. And without a brain, it is not a person. No human body sans a brain is a human person. Take my brain out and you've killed me. My body is no longer a person. OTOH, given some future technology if you clone my body with everthing except the brain and then put my brain in there, now that new body is me! The person is in the brain for as long as the brain lives. No living brain in a body, no person.
          He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

          "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            aaaaand we are back to talking about legal terms.

            The brain dead "patient" is still a human being. And his unplugging does require someone with the legal power of attorney to disconnect him. If he were just an object at that point, no permission would be required. They could just chop him up for parts without permission. And again, a brain dead person is someone who can't recover. So not like an embryo....
            Meh, even HuffPo cautions us about accepting "brain death" as a final and authoritative declaration of "it's over".

            Even Evolution News carries this story, and suggests further research is needed.

            Jahi McMath suffered catastrophic complications from throat surgery in December of 2013 — three and a half years ago.

            She was soon declared to be brain dead, and Oakland Children’s Hospital informed her mother, Nailah Winkfield, that life support would be terminated.

            Winkfield sued, but after an independent medical examination, the judge ruled that Jahi was deceased and allowed a death certificate to be issued. He also played Solomon, and worked out a settlement whereby Children’s Hospital transferred Jahi to her relatives while still on life support. She was moved to New Jersey, where she remains today.

            At the time, I believed Jahi was dead, and so wrote.

            But I also wrote that if she did not deteriorate, as almost all people with properly determined brain death do, my eyebrows would raise. Since then, Jahi has not deteriorated, but apparently, her body’s condition has improved. My eyebrows are above my hairline.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              I would say that just because aborting the fetus prior to it having conscious awareness does not make it right or good. This forming child will be a human person, of infinite worth and value, and stopping that process for trivial reasons is wrong.
              So it's the "potential" defense. Saying that it will have value implies that prior to consciousness, it has no value, and a pro-abortionist will happily accept that premise and knock the legs right out from under your argument.

              That's why I say that abortion is immoral not because of what the fetus will be but because of what it is from the moment of conception: an innocent human life.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Meh, even HuffPo cautions us about accepting "brain death" as a final and authoritative declaration of "it's over".

                Even Evolution News carries this story, and suggests further research is needed.

                Jahi McMath suffered catastrophic complications from throat surgery in December of 2013 — three and a half years ago.

                She was soon declared to be brain dead, and Oakland Children’s Hospital informed her mother, Nailah Winkfield, that life support would be terminated.

                Winkfield sued, but after an independent medical examination, the judge ruled that Jahi was deceased and allowed a death certificate to be issued. He also played Solomon, and worked out a settlement whereby Children’s Hospital transferred Jahi to her relatives while still on life support. She was moved to New Jersey, where she remains today.

                At the time, I believed Jahi was dead, and so wrote.

                But I also wrote that if she did not deteriorate, as almost all people with properly determined brain death do, my eyebrows would raise. Since then, Jahi has not deteriorated, but apparently, her body’s condition has improved. My eyebrows are above my hairline.
                They were not dead because the brain was still alive. This does not change the fact that without a brain, there is no person there. This just says we may think a brain is dead when it is not. And that may well factor into how early we can consider a fetus a person.

                But until there is a brain in there to start with, the argument is moot. There is no brain there. There is no person there.
                He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  No, it is just a debate strategy with some abortionists like yourself who want to muddy the waters with various detached terms, so you don't have to admit that you are killing a human being.
                  I'm pro-life and I'm pointing out matters that go directly to the constitutional limitations permissible on the issue of abortion and I definitely will not continue trying to explain important distinctions if you're going to falsely label me an "abortionist".

                  --Sam
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    So it's the "potential" defense. Saying that it will have value implies that prior to consciousness, it has no value, and a pro-abortionist will happily accept that premise and knock the legs right out from under your argument.

                    That's why I say that abortion is immoral not because of what the fetus will be but because of what it is from the moment of conception: an innocent human life.
                    You are only wrong in that what you are not really applying innocent correctly, so your premise is false.

                    Innocence doesn't technically apply to that which is not conscious and has no capacity for consciousness. We can confer innocence on a rock if we want to. We can confer it on a fish too if we say being innocent just means never having done evil. But technically, it doesn't apply. Rocks and fish don't have the capacity to do wrong. Therefore they can't be innocent of wrong. Or conversely, you could reverse the logic say that the sort of innocence that applies to a zygote also applies just as well to a rock, or a fish.

                    But the potential to become a human being - that doesn't exist in a rock or a fish. And THAT is why abortion is immoral, even if in the early stages it is not murder.
                    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-23-2020, 03:48 PM.
                    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      They were not dead because the brain was still alive....


                      First Things

                      Last month, a thirteen-year-old girl named Jahi McMath entered Children’s Hospital Oakland for elective surgery to treat sleep apnea. She later suffered a catastrophic cardiac arrest, and was soon declared “brain dead.”

                      Wesley J. SmithThe hospital told Jahi’s mother and extended family she had died and that they would turn off her ventilator. Her family protested. She was warm, they noted, and her heart was beating. To them, that meant she was still alive.

                      The family went public, generating national headlines. Bitter litigation ensued. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo ultimately arm-twisted the parties into a settlement that released Jahi to her family—still on the ventilator—who removed her to an undisclosed location. They report she is now being nourished by a feeding tube.

                      Jahi’s tragedy has caused much confusion about the legalities and ethics surrounding brain death, which is understandable, but a shame. Brain death, properly declared, indeed is death. “Brain dead” is simply the popular term for declaring death “by neurological criteria,” one of the two legal methods for determining the bona fide demise of a human being.
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post


                        First Things

                        Last month, a thirteen-year-old girl named Jahi McMath entered Children’s Hospital Oakland for elective surgery to treat sleep apnea. She later suffered a catastrophic cardiac arrest, and was soon declared “brain dead.”

                        Wesley J. SmithThe hospital told Jahi’s mother and extended family she had died and that they would turn off her ventilator. Her family protested. She was warm, they noted, and her heart was beating. To them, that meant she was still alive.

                        The family went public, generating national headlines. Bitter litigation ensued. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo ultimately arm-twisted the parties into a settlement that released Jahi to her family—still on the ventilator—who removed her to an undisclosed location. They report she is now being nourished by a feeding tube.

                        Jahi’s tragedy has caused much confusion about the legalities and ethics surrounding brain death, which is understandable, but a shame. Brain death, properly declared, indeed is death. “Brain dead” is simply the popular term for declaring death “by neurological criteria,” one of the two legal methods for determining the bona fide demise of a human being.
                        Are you accidentally missing the point, or on purpose?
                        He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                        "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Are you accidentally missing the point, or on purpose?
                          Just noting that science/medicine can be gravely wrong.
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Meh, even HuffPo cautions us about accepting "brain death" as a final and authoritative declaration of "it's over".

                            Even Evolution News carries this story, and suggests further research is needed.

                            Jahi McMath suffered catastrophic complications from throat surgery in December of 2013 — three and a half years ago.

                            She was soon declared to be brain dead, and Oakland Children’s Hospital informed her mother, Nailah Winkfield, that life support would be terminated.

                            Winkfield sued, but after an independent medical examination, the judge ruled that Jahi was deceased and allowed a death certificate to be issued. He also played Solomon, and worked out a settlement whereby Children’s Hospital transferred Jahi to her relatives while still on life support. She was moved to New Jersey, where she remains today.

                            At the time, I believed Jahi was dead, and so wrote.

                            But I also wrote that if she did not deteriorate, as almost all people with properly determined brain death do, my eyebrows would raise. Since then, Jahi has not deteriorated, but apparently, her body’s condition has improved. My eyebrows are above my hairline.
                            In a previous discussion I noted that some patients in deep comas can have even less brainwave activity than an unborn baby at about 7 weeks. The former virtually flat lines though some recover. The latter continues to grow and develop.
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            "Meaningful life" is just claptrap that abortion supporter trot out to excuse their actions. Since brainwaves can pretty much flat line when someone enters the deepest type of coma (they "cannot process information or move in response to a stimulus") this means that you wouldn't consider them alive and euthanizing (killing) them is completely acceptable.

                            Source: From the Deepest Coma, New Brain Activity Found


                            When a patient's brain falls completely silent, and electrical recordings devices show a flat line, reflecting a lack of brain activity, doctors consider the patient to have reached the deepest stage of a coma. However, new findings suggest there can be a coma stage even deeper than this flat line — and that brain activity can ramp up again from this state.

                            In the case of one patient in a drug-induced coma, and in subsequent experiments on cats, the researchers found that after deepening the coma by administering a higher dose of drugs, the silent brain started showing minimum but widespread neural activity across the brain, according to the study published today (Sept. 18) in the journal PLOS ONE.

                            The findings were based on measures of the brain's electrical activity, detected by electroencephalography (EEG), which shows various waveforms. In comatose patients, depending on the stage of their coma, the waveforms are altered. As the coma deepens, the EEG device will eventually show a flat line instead of a wave – this stage is considered to be the turning point between a living brain and a deceased brain.

                            "Flat line was the deepest known form of coma," said study researcher Florin Amzica, neurophysiologist at Université de Montréal.

                            The new study shows "there's a deeper form of coma that goes beyond the flat line, and during this state of very deep coma, cortical activity revives," Amzica said. He noted the findings apply to patients in a medically induced coma with healthy brains that are receiving blood and oxygen. The conclusions may not extend to cases of comatose patients who have suffered major brain damage, he said.




                            Source

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            In contrast, electroencephalograms have been detecting brainwaves as early as 6 to 6½ weeks since back in the mid-1950s and this has been confirmed multiple times since then. As Parents Magazine succinctly puts it in their series about the development of the baby at week 6 "brain waves can now be recorded."




                            Hopefully, abortions will soon go the way of slavery but I'm afraid it's going to take Christ's return to put an end to this scourge.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              Sparko - this is not a simple discussion and you can't reduce it to simple terms beyond a certain point. Sam is doing a good job of defining the necessary distinctions. A human person is more than just a few human cells. A zygote becomes a human person.

                              Consider if the brain never forms in the developing zygote->fetus. A fetus without a brain is not a person legally or any other way. Yet you define it a person before it has that which is necessary for personhood! Would you then confer 'provisional personhood' on it, then take it away because of what never was? That is convoluted and irrational. Logically, the zygote can't be what it is not yet. And without a brain, it is not a person. No human body sans a brain is a human person. Take my brain out and you've killed me. My body is no longer a person. OTOH, given some future technology if you clone my body with everthing except the brain and then put my brain in there, now that new body is me! The person is in the brain for as long as the brain lives. No living brain in a body, no person.
                              Actually no. I never said "person" - Sam did. I said "being" and said I meant it as "organism" - a separate and distinct organism. and in this case a HUMAN organism. Member of the Human Species.

                              Person is a legal term. There is talk of conferring personhood to apes.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Just noting that science/medicine can be gravely wrong.
                                They can be. But you can't be wrong about there being no consciousness in the fetus before it has a brain. Consciousness is in the brain. This is the real world, not Oz.
                                He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                                "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 11:21 PM
                                1 response
                                15 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by mossrose, Yesterday, 07:12 PM
                                9 responses
                                56 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 06:47 PM
                                2 responses
                                36 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 09:32 AM
                                4 responses
                                55 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, Yesterday, 08:25 AM
                                82 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Zara
                                by Zara
                                 
                                Working...
                                X