(July 24, 2014 at 9:32 am)Heywood Wrote:

(July 23, 2014 at 1:38 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote: Hell no. First of all: A perfectly healthy human being under anesthesia? Why the hell would anyone do that?
Most people under anesthesia choose to be sedated either implicitly or explicitly. And they do so in the expectation there will be efforts to heal the illness that causes the pain.

Most people expect that their future expected person-hood be morally protected.

(July 23, 2014 at 1:38 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote: Also this 'future person' of yours has lived a life, made friends, has people who love the 'future person'. And their love is why these friends and loved ones tend to say stuff like 'I hope he gets better' instead of 'I hope he becomes a person again'. Sheesh.

Murder is wrong because A)it robs a person of future expected person-hood. and/or B) It robs living members of society the companionship of the victim. I'm sure you will agree that a person doesn't have to have any friends or loved ones to be morally protected. It would be wrong to kill a human even if that human won't be missed by anyone.

Now I have considered adding past person-hood as a condition of moral protection. For instance moral protection should be granted to human beings who have a history of past person-hood and have an expectation of future person-hood. However if you think about it....the only reason whatsoever to add the condition of past personhood....is to justify abortion. It just doesn't feel right to add that provision to my moral code just so I can justify the killing of certain human beings. Without that provision, my code is coherent and consistent.

Yeah. But my question and the actual meat of my post was this:

Quote:But let me get this straight: are you really saying that we should force people into labor because it fixes the (mostly semantic) issues you have about "the future and past personhood" of a fucking hypothetical "perfectly healthy human being under anesthesia" and braindead people?

10, 9, 8, 7..... Good.

For those of you arguing against abortion, you mustn't forget two possible judgements can be made. One is a moral judgement, an individual (man or woman, it doesn't matter) can consider abortion immoral, moral or morally neutral according to their principles and values. The other is a legal judgement, one can argue against the legality of abortion, for decriminalization, for liberalization, according to what you consider to be the best option. My point is, don't forget to separate the two topics when you are discussing, sometimes I can't say if you are arguing against abortion being moral or legal.

I consider abortion can be immoral or not, it just depends on the circumstances, that's irrelevant

I also consider the best option is to make it legal, liberalized and available, at least by a matter of public health, and those who are against don't need to practice it, it's fair.

My previous post was 6666, more badass than regular 666. Balckout just happened to hit 1000. This of course means gods exist, derp.

I already said I asked god for a good girlfriend and now I have one, therefore god exists

(July 23, 2014 at 10:41 am)Heywood Wrote: If in your mind future expectation of person-hood doesn't grant a being moral protection....then you should be okay with killing a perfectly healthy human being under general anesthesia. The moment a human is under general anesthesia...they are simply a piece of meat.....there is no person there....so it should be "okay" to kill that being....right?

You keep saying this, which is kinda amazing, because it demonstrates just how much you will not learn about how the brain and consciousness works, even when you're corrected on it.

Even unconscious, the human brain still works. The autonomic processes that keep the body alive, the beating heart and breathing lungs and so on, continue to function, which should be a hint to you that there's still something going on in there. The subconscious, just as much a part of the mind as anything else, still functions. The person's longterm memory still functions, as does whatever parts of the brain govern personality.

What you're doing, and at this point I'd have to say it's willfully because you've been told this before, is equivocating the expression of consciousness, with consciousness itself. Even under anesthesia, the person is still bound up in their headmeats, still stored in the brain even if dormant. The mind is still in there, it's just not able to do all the things it can at normal functionality at the moment.

You can make all the fiat assertions you like about future personhood, but the medical community would disagree with you; they know that there's a fundamental difference between a sleeping person and a brain damaged one that has nothing to do with abstract potential, defined with completely arbitrary dividing lines by the random, wild assertions of some guy on the internet. Your consciousness is your brain, and when it's unconscious it's still within normal operating parameters. When it's damaged- or missing in the case of the fetus- then it's not. That is when there's nobody at home. Future personhood doesn't come into it at all; in the former case nobody is answering the door, and in the middle case the occupant has vacated the premises, and in the latter case the house isn't even built yet.

I hate this argument because I think the precluding question "where does life begin?" Is the wrong question.

If I'm wrong, correct me, but sperm and eggs are cells and so essentially living organisms right? So that would be life, right?

What is the defintion of life? What is the definition for human life? What is its commencing parameters?

Maybe I am just being too picky.


But I totally agree with you, consciousness is a huge part and it needs to be considered.

(July 13, 2014 at 7:08 am)TheGamingAtheist Wrote: ...

I think it is a very slippery slope to define human life with consciousness. If human life requires consciousness to have human rights then do we lose those rights when we are unconcsciousness (be it under anesthesia, in a coma, or from brain damage)? If so then would we be ok with the termination of that life?

I've always found it impossible to define any criteria that is necessary for human life to be given human rights for these exact types of arguements, but if you have one I have not thought of please let me know.

---

(July 24, 2014 at 3:09 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(July 23, 2014 at 10:41 am)Heywood Wrote: If in your mind future expectation of person-hood doesn't grant a being moral protection....then you should be okay with killing a perfectly healthy human being under general anesthesia. The moment a human is under general anesthesia...they are simply a piece of meat.....there is no person there....so it should be "okay" to kill that being....right?

You keep saying this, which is kinda amazing, because it demonstrates just how much you will not learn about how the brain and consciousness works, even when you're corrected on it.

Even unconscious, the human brain still works. The autonomic processes that keep the body alive, the beating heart and breathing lungs and so on, continue to function, which should be a hint to you that there's still something going on in there. The subconscious, just as much a part of the mind as anything else, still functions. The person's longterm memory still functions, as does whatever parts of the brain govern personality.

What you're doing, and at this point I'd have to say it's willfully because you've been told this before, is equivocating the expression of consciousness, with consciousness itself. Even under anesthesia, the person is still bound up in their headmeats, still stored in the brain even if dormant. The mind is still in there, it's just not able to do all the things it can at normal functionality at the moment.

You can make all the fiat assertions you like about future personhood, but the medical community would disagree with you; they know that there's a fundamental difference between a sleeping person and a brain damaged one that has nothing to do with abstract potential, defined with completely arbitrary dividing lines by the random, wild assertions of some guy on the internet. Your consciousness is your brain, and when it's unconscious it's still within normal operating parameters. When it's damaged- or missing in the case of the fetus- then it's not. That is when there's nobody at home. Future personhood doesn't come into it at all; in the former case nobody is answering the door, and in the middle case the occupant has vacated the premises, and in the latter case the house isn't even built yet.

I'm ACTUALLY AN MD so let me clear up some confusion. First you have tried to confused autonomic nervous system with high order function. It is unfortunately not uncommon for all higher order activity to be destroyed, yet the autonomic system is intact (breathing in particular - the heart has it's own automaticity that is not intrinisically dependent on the autonomics). Next, our understanding of general anesthesia is incomplete (it truely is) but it is NOT the same as sleeping - most if not all higher order function are or can be shut down with certain anesthestics. therefore the question is legit - is the presense of consciousness required to be considered human or have human rights? If it is not then this cannot be extrapolated back to justify why a fetus does not have human rights. This does not mean that abortion is intrisinically right or wrong, only the fallicy of defining a charastic that is required for human rights.

Lol. Have you been taking Heywood pills?? Your an MD really? Wow. Probably American? Baha. But seriously, so far you've got nothing even remotely convincing. Try again.

What is this abortion thread adding that the other fucking 100+ page thread wasn't addressing? Seriously.

---

(August 24, 2014 at 11:43 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: I'm ACTUALLY AN MD so let me clear up some confusion. First you have tried to confused autonomic nervous system with high order function. It is unfortunately not uncommon for all higher order activity to be destroyed, yet the autonomic system is intact (breathing in particular - the heart has it's own automaticity that is not intrinisically dependent on the autonomics). Next, our understanding of general anesthesia is incomplete (it truely is) but it is NOT the same as sleeping - most if not all higher order function are or can be shut down with certain anesthestics. therefore the question is legit - is the presense of consciousness required to be considered human or have human rights? If it is not then this cannot be extrapolated back to justify why a fetus does not have human rights. This does not mean that abortion is intrisinically right or wrong, only the fallicy of defining a charastic that is required for human rights.

How do you become an MD with such a weak grasp of medical ethics and the fundaments of philosophy-- or even of basic spelling and grammar?

I'd love to see a copy of your diploma, because I'm calling bullshit. And I know what I'm talking about, because I have a joint PhD from Harverd and Yayl in Merdology.