[tufc]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Thats not necessarily true. People who are brain dead are also considered dead even if the heart is still beating. The debate is highly complex but it boils down to is the right to life to the person, or the organism (they are not one and the same).

If you and other people consider the brain-dead dead, then why do you need to have the term 'brain-dead'? Surely if the brain-dead are dead, then they should just be called 'dead', and to separate the death of the brain from the death of the individual is to implicitly acknowledge that they are not the same thing...

[Darkphilosopher]

(Original post by tufc)
That's the defining symbol of life across the world; it's the organ that constantly maintains every other organ.

So do the lungs. (No lungs -> No oxygen -> No life)

[ShredMaster]

(Original post by Bellissima)
why is she "brave"?

Because anti-abortion opinions are frowned upon by most of Western Europe.

[tufc]

(Original post by Darkphilosopher)
So do the lungs. (No lungs -> No oxygen -> No life)

They don't have the same cultural significance.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Elipsis)
If we take your brain dead example, if that person was almost certain to make a full recovery no one would ever let you pull the plug. I think the pro-choice side in this debate tries it's very hardest to get away from the fact that what is being terminated is in fact a human. The fact that many many women go through this procedure and we end up spending millions each year counselling them for it, telling them that it was fine etc. when they know in their hearts it was wrong and selfish, is testament to this.

Maybe you don't understand what brain-dead means? If a person is brain dead there is no chance of a full recovery or even partial recovery. The person is dead. The human body is still alive. But which had the right to life? The person? or the body?

The fetus may be that of a human, but is it a person. As we give rights to persons, not just humans. For example if I found a way to grow human bodies, and I grew one without a brain so that it was never conscious, but I kept it alive with machines does that body have a right to life?

(Original post by tufc)
If you and other people consider the brain-dead dead, then why do you need to have the term 'brain-dead'? Surely if the brain-dead are dead, then they should just be called 'dead', and to separate the death of the brain from the death of the individual is to implicitly acknowledge that they are not the same thing...

There is a distinction because the person is dead. Not the body. It is generally believed that one's consciousness stems from the brain, so when you say brain dead you are referring to the individual's person being dead, not the body.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by tufc)
They don't have the same cultural significance.

So you think it depends on the culture what determines when someone is alive? In that case what happens when our culture changes, as it inevitably will? You are making it subjective in which case what makes your subjective opinion any more valid than another persons?

[boba]

(Original post by Darkphilosopher)
I think her father was probably doing it for her own good.
A baby at 15 is likely to completely ruin somebody's potential future prospects.

it doesn't really sound like that since when she later had a baby which she was happy about he responded to ask "why didn't you abort" and then wanted nothing to do with the child. if it was just because of caring about her he might of still encouraged her to as he might of thought she was still to young yes but then refusing to have anything to do with the child after the decision had been made doesn't give the impression that his actions were based on concern for his daughter.
the way she talks about how it was never even talked about again doesn't make it seem like that either. I know for a fact that if I had been through a procedure like that, that was not only physically trying by can have long lasting mental impacts if people doubt the decision ect, my dad would be so focused on doing anything he could to make sure I was ok, not acting like it never happened.

perhaps she isn't telling it fairly due to her new found pro lifeness and the fact that it was a decision that went against what she now belives. but based just on what she said, which is all we have to go on, he really doesn't sound like a caring father who only had his daughters best interests at heart.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Maybe you don't understand what brain-dead means? If a person is brain dead there is no chance of a full recovery or even partial recovery. The person is dead. The human body is still alive. But which had the right to life? The person? or the body?

The fetus may be that of a human, but is it a person. As we give rights to persons, not just humans. For example if I found a way to grow human bodies, and I grew one without a brain so that it was never conscious, but I kept it alive with machines does that body have a right to life?

Well you can't throw a hypothetical scenario out there to prove your point, by saying "is a brain dead person alive", because for that hypothetical scenario to apply to a foetus it would have to be the case that all foetuses never gained consciousness, which isn't the case. So your use of a brain dead person to prove that foetuses are the same as that and can therefore be aborted is fallicious.

As is your second attempt to try and prove abortion is OK using hypothetical scenarios. It simply doesn't apply to a foetus or a baby. They will almost definitely become conscious. If a baby is going to be born brain dead, then I don't have any issue with aborting it. Nor do I have an issue with aborting severely disabled foetuses, or for that matter severely disabled people who are living a life of misery.

[tufc]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Maybe you don't understand what brain-dead means? If a person is brain dead there is no chance of a full recovery or even partial recovery. The person is dead. The human body is still alive. But which had the right to life? The person? or the body?

The fetus may be that of a human, but is it a person. As we give rights to persons, not just humans. For example if I found a way to grow human bodies, and I grew one without a brain so that it was never conscious, but I kept it alive with machines does that body have a right to life?



There is a distinction because the person is dead. Not the body. It is generally believed that one's consciousness stems from the brain, so when you say brain dead you are referring to the individual's person being dead, not the body.

But 'dead' refers to the individual, not just the body.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Well you can't throw a hypothetical scenario out there to prove your point, by saying "is a brain dead person alive", because for that hypothetical scenario to apply to a foetus it would have to be the case that all foetuses never gained consciousness, which isn't the case. So your use of a brain dead person to prove that foetuses are the same as that and can therefore be aborted is fallicious.

As is your second attempt to try and prove abortion is OK using hypothetical scenarios. It simply doesn't apply to a foetus or a baby. They will almost definitely become conscious. If a baby is going to be born brain dead, then I don't have any issue with aborting it. Nor do I have an issue with aborting severely disabled foetuses, or for that matter severely disabled people who are living a life of misery.

You are missing the point. You keep adding this 'right to become life'. You can't base their current rights on what may (even very probably) happen in the future. The point still stands from my hypotheticals that someone who does not have a consciousness does not have a right to life. This would then also transfer to a fetus. If it doesn't have consciousness it doesn't really have any rights. Whether or not it could or would develop a consciousness is irrelevant.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by tufc)
But 'dead' refers to the individual, not just the body.

That is because 'dead' is referring to the body and if the body dies, so does the brain and therefore the person.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
You are missing the point. You keep adding this 'right to become life'. You can't base their current rights on what may (even very probably) happen in the future. The point still stands from my hypotheticals that someone who does not have a consciousness does not have a right to life. This would then also transfer to a fetus. If it doesn't have consciousness it doesn't really have any rights. Whether or not it could or would develop a consciousness is irrelevant.

No, but that isn't how it works once you are in existence. If you go into a coma tomorrow and you stand a good chance of recovery it would be illegal to unplug you. You have the right to become concious... People who will definitely never have conciousness do not have a right to life because without conscience there is no life, you are correct there. But people who stand a very good chance of doing so certainly do.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Elipsis)
No, but that isn't how it works once you are in existence. If you go into a coma tomorrow and you stand a good chance of recovery it would be illegal to unplug you. You have the right to become concious... People who will definitely never have conciousness do not have a right to life because without conscience there is no life, you are correct there. But people who stand a very good chance of doing so certainly do.

That is only for people who already have had a consciousness because their person exists, and is more similar to them falling asleep (they lose consciousness but they as a person is still in existence). But the fetus has no consciousness and therefore no person exists. And whether or not a person does or does not exist does not give the fetus rights at the moment.

To further your idea. If you have to give rights to potential life and consciousness how do you justify cutting off the potential at a fertilized egg? What about individual eggs? or sperm? They also have the potential to become conscious. Logically you are obligated to say that you can't 'kill' those either as they have the right to develop consciousness.

[Dagnabbit]

(Original post by Cephalus)
The sperm and egg are both alive before fertilisation.

What about all the several, several sperm cells that don't fertilise the egg?
What about sex after menopause?
What about sex with contraception?
What about nocturnal emissions?

All these events mean that there will be sperm cells left to die. If sperm cells are 'alive' (possess a soul?) in the same way that humans and foetuses are, then surely all the 4 things occurring above are morally wrong?

In another thread you stated you are a Christian, I don't believe that the Bible necessarily says that sperm and egg cells are living things in the same way foetuses and humans are. I'm almost 100% sure they won't be judged and can't possibly go to hell if they die before fertilising an egg. Of course, every sperm cell has potential to have a soul but I don't think that should mean they have a soul before fertilisation.

[Cephalus]

(Original post by Dagnabbit)
What about all the several, several sperm cells that don't fertilise the egg?
What about sex after menopause?
What about sex with contraception?
What about nocturnal emissions?

All these events mean that there will be sperm cells left to die. If sperm cells are 'alive' (possess a soul?) in the same way that humans and foetuses are, then surely all the 4 things occurring above are morally wrong?

In another thread you stated you are a Christian, I don't believe that the Bible necessarily says that sperm and egg cells are living things in the same way foetuses and humans are. I'm almost 100% sure they won't be judged and can't possibly go to hell if they die before fertilising an egg. Of course, every sperm cell has potential to have a soul but I don't think that should mean they have a soul before fertilisation.

Yes but all the things you describe are natural (except the one about contraception). But abortion is not natural

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Cephalus)
Yes but all the things you describe are natural (except the one about contraception). But abortion is not natural

That is using the naturalistic fallacy, something being natural or unnatural has nothing to do with whether it is 'good' or 'bad'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

[PerArduaAdAstra]

I'm all for abortion. For me, an embryo/ ball of cells just isn't a human. I can't see how it's good to bring a baby into the world when it is unwanted. At the same time, I don't agree with it being used as a contraceptive measure. Abortion should only really happen if the contraceptive methods used fail.

[Cephalus]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
That is using the naturalistic fallacy, something being natural or unnatural has nothing to do with whether it is 'good' or 'bad'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

No, that is quite true. I suppose I'm more predisposed to argue this way because of my religion, which of course, not everybody shares

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Elipsis)
No, but that isn't how it works once you are in existence. If you go into a coma tomorrow and you stand a good chance of recovery it would be illegal to unplug you. You have the right to become concious... People who will definitely never have conciousness do not have a right to life because without conscience there is no life, you are correct there. But people who stand a very good chance of doing so certainly do.

The bolded is the key part of what you say. Something can't have rights prior to its own existence.

[Dagnabbit]

(Original post by Cephalus)
Yes but all the things you describe are natural (except the one about contraception). But abortion is not natural

I get where you're coming from, but not sure I agree. Also not sure how contraception can be seen as not natural. Surely there are many 'natural' ways such as deliberately having sex when the couple know the woman is infertile or withdrawing (coitus interruptus)?

Also, do sperm and egg cells have a soul (or feelings), in your opinion?