Personhood

[Shell B]

If a baby is brain dead, would it be logical to take the baby off life support?

Well, to call it logic, you would have to lay out the logic that leads you to that conclusion, so I couldn't really say whether your argument is logical. Personally, I wouldn't do it if there was no shred of hope. It's delaying the inevitable and I don't have the resources. Someone who did have the resources and still managed to cling to hope? Well, it would be logical for them.

I think it's up to the mother, but she will invest a lot on a baby that doesn't even notice, care, want, etc. It's sad. It's the kind of selfish that mostly hurts the person being selfish.

Whether it is selfish or not depends on the person's motive for keeping the baby alive. Say she believes in miracles? Sure, we know it's bullshit, but it's not really selfish if she truly and honestly believes a miracle could happen. Sane? Perhaps not, but it's not black and white.

[Rahul]

Someone who did have the resources and still managed to cling to hope? Well, it would be logical for them.

No. It would still be illogical. They could just afford to be illogical.

I don't think it would be psychologically healthy to keep it alive.

[Lek]

The boy is obviously alive and breathing. I'm not going to call him "it" because somebody decided he was not a person due to being born without a brain. I know what it is that makes us human, but I won't get into that. As far as our opinions go, I guess it doesn't matter to the child anyway.

[Minimalist]

If a baby is brain dead, would it be logical to take the baby off life support?

He wasn't on life support. Instead he was having multiple seizures every day. In Colorado, "brain death" includes the brain stem. The brain stem regulates respiration and cardio-vascular control. Unlike the woman in Texas who was dead in every sense of the word except that the hospital wanted to keep her blood pumping this boy's heart and lungs were working.
Even though it did him precious little good.

[Shell B]

No. It would still be illogical. They could just afford to be illogical.

I don't think it would be psychologically healthy to keep it alive.

Why? Because it wouldn't be healthy for you? Maybe she copes just fine. That's the thing. Logic doesn't really have to do with applying your own personal emotional experiences to someone else's.

I agree that there is something off about it, but I don't claim to call my opinion logical. It is based purely in emotion.

[Rahul]

Why? Because it wouldn't be healthy for you? Maybe she copes just fine. That's the thing. Logic doesn't really have to do with applying your own personal emotional experiences to someone else's.

I agree that there is something off about it, but I don't claim to call my opinion logical. It is based purely in emotion.

Why what? Why would it be illogical? Because it's a brainless human body. Keeping such a thing biologically alive is illogical because such a thing would never really be alive. It would never grow up and be a member of society in any shape or form. It would never experience joy or laughter. A severely disabled kid is still a member of society and can make important contributions. A mentally retarded child still laughs and experiences joy. A brainless human body could only contribute through it's death such as organ donation. It would never experience anything personally.

Or do you mean why would it not be psychologically healthy? Because no one has a kid hoping it will be a brainless, breathing human body. They had a child with the hope of watching it grow up, hearing the first word, watching the first step, the laughter, sharing life experiences with a new family member, watching that baby become an adult, etc. When the baby never developed a brain all those hopes and dreams were utterly destroyed as far as this attempt. Keeping it alive would be, I would think, a sign that they weren't accepting that. Not moving on and going through the grieving process would be psychologically unhealthy for anyone.

[Shell B]

Why what? Why would it be illogical?

Yes.

Because it's a brainless human body. Keeping such a thing biologically alive is illogical because such a thing would never really be alive. It would never grow up and be a member of society in any shape or form. It would never experience joy or laughter.

And? Here's where the logic ends. You have to show that a person has to experience those things in order for it to be "logical" to keep it alive. This is a purely emotional argument. It's one I agree with, but only on an emotional level. Where I draw the line is calling it logical as if there is some logical formula for determining whether a person should live. Hint: There isn't.

Or do you mean why would it not be psychologically healthy?

Yes, that is what I meant. You cannot determine what is psychologically healthy for another individual in every case. Firstly, armchair psychology is stupid. Secondly, your emotions are completely subjective. She could be happier than a pig in shit and you would assume she wasn't because you aren't. People with religious standing on certain issues can be pretty witless. Therefore, we cannot say for certain that she is unhappy. She could think the kid was the next Messiah or something and be overcome with joy.

Because no one has a kid hoping it will be a brainless, breathing human body.

Well, someone with Munchausen by proxy would shit themselves with joy over it, but I digress. Of course people don't hope for that, but we rarely get exactly what we hope for and people deal with it.

They had a child with the hope of watching it grow up, hearing the first word, watching the first step, the laughter, watching that baby become an adult, etc. When the baby never developed a brain all those hopes and dreams were utterly destroyed as far as this attempt. Keeping it alive would be, I would think, a sign that they weren't accepting that. Not moving on and going through the grieving process would be psychologically unhealthy for anyone.

You are again applying your own emotional responses to someone else. That is fine and I agree, but why call it "logical?" It's not a logic problem.

[Minimalist]

Because it's a brainless human body.

The church always has openings.

[Rahul]

And? Here's where the logic ends. You have to show that a person has to experience those things in order for it to be "logical" to keep it alive. This is a purely emotional argument. It's one I agree with, but only on an emotional level. Where I draw the line is calling it logical as if there is some logical formula for determining whether a person should live. Hint: There isn't.

You are making a fundamental error. It isn't a "person". It's a brainless, breathing human body. If I cut off your arm and you see it laying on the ground is that arm you? No, it was a part of your body.

Even the molecules that comprise that arm weren't there a couple years ago. Our bodies are constantly rebuilding and purging out old molecules. Divorced from the part of your body that contains your awareness it isn't a person. It's a thing. A thing that used to belong to the body of a person.

If I remove your brain from your skull and toss it in the proverbial brain vat, is your old body you? No. It contains no awareness. It was simply the housing of a person. Separated from that it becomes a non-person. A biological object.

Yes, that is what I meant. You cannot determine what is psychologically healthy for another individual in every case.

I'm not trying to determine what is psychologically health in every case. But living with a breathing corpse instead of accepting reality is not healthy for a person who is mentally healthy. If someone finds joy in such a thing they need help to become psychologically healthy.

What we should not do is to encourage unhealthy behavior.

Firstly, armchair psychology is stupid.

But we're both doing it.

Secondly, your emotions are completely subjective. She could be happier than a pig in shit and you would assume she wasn't because you aren't.

Not if she was mentally healthy. No parent would be happy as a pig in shit that the child they had hoped for was replaced with a brainless corpse.

People with religious standing on certain issues can be pretty witless. Therefore, we cannot say for certain that she is unhappy. She could think the kid was the next Messiah or something and be overcome with joy.

Many serial killers were overcome with joy by killing people. Because they were mentally disturbed. An unhealthy mind frequently encourages itself to engage in unhealthy pursuits.

Well, someone with Munchausen by proxy would shit themselves with joy over it, but I digress.

Correct. A mentally unhealthy person who needed help.

Of course people don't hope for that, but we rarely get exactly what we hope for and people deal with it.

Agreed. She should deal with it. She should go through the grieving process and move on with her life. Not stay in limbo caring for a brainless piece of meat and clinging to illusions that she has a baby to take care of.

You are again applying your own emotional responses to someone else. That is fine and I agree, but why call it "logical?" It's not a logic problem.

No. As a dispassionate observer who does not know this woman or have any emotions invested in her plight I am stating what healthy behavior would be to any mentally healthy person.

[Shell B]

You are making a fundamental error. It isn't a "person". It's a brainless, breathing human body. If I cut off your arm and you see it laying on the ground is that arm you? No, it was a part of your body.

You think I'm making a fundamental error. The interesting thing is that this is not even part of our debate here. Are we discussing personhood? Nope. We are discussing whether or not it is logical or illogical to keep a human being alive when it is brain dead.

Even the molecules that comprise that arm weren't there a couple years ago. Our bodies are constantly rebuilding and purging out old molecules. Divorced from the part of your body that contains your awareness it isn't a person. It's a thing. A thing that used to belong to the body of a person.

Irrelevant.

If I remove your brain from your skull and toss it in the proverbial brain vat, is your old body you? No. It contains no awareness. It was simply the housing of a person. Separated from that it becomes a non-person. A biological object.

*sigh* also irrelevant.

I'm not trying to determine what is psychologically health in every case. But living with a breathing corpse instead of accepting reality is not healthy for a person who is mentally healthy. If someone finds joy in such a thing they need help to become psychologically healthy.

What we should not do is to encourage unhealthy behavior.

Who is encouraging it? She has every legal right to do what she is doing. You're arguing morality, which isn't really logic. Which is the debate we are actually having or that we were having. I don't know what is happening now.

But we're both doing it.

Where am I making valued statements about her mental health? Nowhere, if I recall correctly. The only thing I am doing is presenting scenarios where your black and white statements could be incorrect. You are the one diagnosing her with mental issues.

Not if she was mentally healthy. No parent would be happy as a pig in shit that the child they had hoped for was replaced with a brainless corpse.

It's all about perspective. She may not see it that way. You are making the mistake of assuming everyone thinks like you and will therefore be damaged by the same things that damage you. The world doesn't work that way.

Many serial killers were overcome with joy by killing people. Because they were mentally disturbed. An unhealthy mind frequently encourages itself to engage in unhealthy pursuits.

People always jump to serial killers no matter how big a leap it is. There is such a thing as free will. A parent has the right to help its child to live, be it brain dead or not. Are you suggesting we legislate this as we legislate murder? If so, that is, again, an entirely different argument.

Correct. A mentally unhealthy person who needed help.

Sure, in that scenario, but again, we're trying to determine whether there is logic to keeping a child alive. You have failed to give more than an emotional argument, which I happen to agree with, so where is the part where someone proves that there is a logical problem equal to the task of determining whether a brain dead human should live or die?

Agreed. She should deal with it. She should go through the grieving process and move on with her life. Not stay in limbo caring for a brainless piece of meat and clinging to illusions that she has a baby to take care of.

Should, according to you. Well, according to me too, but again, emotions.

No. As a dispassionate observer who does not know this woman or have any emotions invested in her plight I am stating what healthy behavior would be to any mentally healthy person.

No, you are using your emotional experiences to form an argument which you then call logical. Well, you weren't the first, but still. Why can no one provide an actual logical argument if they are going to call it a logical problem? I'll make it simple. That is because this is not a logical problem. It is based solely on personal, emotional, spiritual, religious and familial experiences. If you were her or a religious person like her, you would feel very differently.