Personhood

[Nine]

I see multiple subjects here.

1: Without a brain/mind is a human a necessarily a person?
2: Is a human without the ability to think or feel worth the same as one that can?
3: Is it okay to sacrifice a human without the ability to think or feel to potentially save one that can?

As for the first it depends on what definition of person you use.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.
5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.

With definition 1 yes the infant is a human and therefor a person. #2 I see as the same as definition 1. definition 3 I would say yes and no because although the infant can't interact with society others interact with him/her (I didn't watch the video). As for 4 he/she is unable be self conscious or rational so no. Finally #5 I would say no for the same reason as 4.

Now for the second topic I would have to hesitantly say maybe not. In a hypothetical situation where I could save either a kid thats able to think and feel or another that can't I would have to pick the one that can. I certainly wouldn't be happy with making the decision seems that regardless of the disability the parents love and care for each of them. Even so where do you draw the line? What if we start ranking all humans on what they are worth or how well they fit the definitions of human then deciding which live and die based on that? Thats fucked up.

I kind of already grazed the last subject but whether you think the infant is a person or not. That infant is loved by its family, and by saying that he/she is not really a person and doesn't deserve the organs and medicine you are essentially taking away their loved one. All that because they aren't person enough to deserve them.

I had to write that quickly so there might be a few mistakes.

---

NG's relative lost the ability to think, and therefore was "without the ability to think", just like this "non-person" you speak of.

Losing the ability to think and never having it in the first place are two different things.

I'm not sure why you think these things are so different.