Abortion/Consciousness/Life

[answer-is-42]

To Rhythm

Let's try again...
First - the root of this thread is DOES CONSCIOUSNESS DETERMINE HUMAN LIFE? that's kinda the point of THIS F#@$G THREAD. Not necessary about abortion, though it obviously touches on it.
My point is including consciousness should NOT be a requirement.
Diminished capasity impiies capasity - uncsciousness in the medical sense (see I used my own definition to remain internally consistent) means NO CAPASITY, albeit transiently. So, if consciousness IS a requirement then by definition an appropriately anesthesized patient would "lose" their human life? (perhaps the word rights made is seem more legalese - but again context is SOOO important)
Regarding incompetency, there are many reasons for incompetency that have nothing to do with consiousness so not really sure how this applies, but again, my arguement was AGAINST using consiousness as a requisite for human life so I guess we agree?

Regarding abortion, well we can actually talk about that on the abortion thread huh? I never brought that up on this thread since that was not the F#@#$@G point of this thread.

[The Grand Nudger]

I see, things don't turn out the way we hoped and now we want a reset?

DOES CONSCIOUSNESS DETERMINE HUMAN LIFE?

I'd say no, but it does effect the legal designation of personhood, and thusly rights.

An "appropriately anesthesized" patient doesn't lose their legal status (though it is modified....think of all the trouble you can get into with the law doing things whilst "appropriately anesthesized ").

The point of a thread with the word abortion in the title, top billing, was -not- to talk about abortion, btw? Shenanigans!

[fr0d0]

@ the OP

Good point. Consciousness is the ethical question I see well defended by Peter Stringer. If our victim has the ability to sense pain then we are morally obliged to consider that. I think it's a successful argument.

I think Heywood has defended the potential human being argument very well here. I totally agree.

I am also, as a Christian, pro choice. The parents are the only ones in the position to consider their actions fully, and make that choice. Without choice you cannot make a moral or ethical judgement.

[answer-is-42]

@ the OP

Good point. Consciousness is the ethical question I see well defended by Peter Stringer. If our victim has the ability to sense pain then we are morally obliged to consider that. I think it's a successful argument.

I think Heywood has defended the potential human being argument very well here. I totally agree.

I am also, as a Christian, pro choice. The parents are the only ones in the position to consider their actions fully, and make that choice. Without choice you cannot make a moral or ethical judgement.

I may not have followed the entirety of you argument, so if I am mis-understanding, please feel free to correct me, but it seems to say that the ability to sense pain is a requirement for Consciousness/life?
Not sure I follow on that - there is a condition where a person cannot expierience any pain - are they not human? If i put a spinal block in and block all sensation are you no longer human?
I may have misunderstood the point, but that seems to be the ludricious conclusion that that line of reasoning leads to. Please correct me if i missed something.
Sorry just found Heywood's posts- I pretty much agree with him/her. Not sure what sensing pain has to do with any of it.
My only caveat is that I do not believe that consioucness is required for personhood. An anesthestized person is still a person - there is no resumption of person hood or restoration of person - they are and remain a person. Stopping life sustaining measures on a brain dead person is adhering to THEIR wishes as expressed by themselves prior to the event that rendered them unable to do so or assuming that their MPA is acting on their behalf in good faith. In other words we are doing what they would have wanted, not what we want to do. This true in the legal system - if you shoot a person in a persistent vegitative state - you have committed murder - personhood still exists.

[Losty]

Sometimes I wonder if you are not the resurrection of Heywood.

[fr0d0]

Well 42 I don't see you understanding much if at all of what I said. The ability to sense pain is what Stringer has said gives us an ethical problem.

If our subject is not brain dead, it will be self aware and potentially able to "feel" the pain of impending loss of its own life.

I was answering the OP and not Heywood. And I don't think that 'consciousness' is restricted to mean just 'awake'. I think you're taking that too literally.

[TheGamingAtheist]

Holy shit... I thought this thread died.lol

[Heywood]

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.

Autonomic processes occur in a fetus too...that doesn't make the fetus a person....your point is impotent.

Whether you like it or not, it is a fact that personhood is something that can easily be switched on and off. Why shouldn't this be true? The process of pumping blood around your body can be switched on and off, what makes the process of personhood so special that it can't be switched on and off? Do you believe in a supernatural soul or something?

What reason, other than wanting to justify abortion, is it necessary to consider past personhood when deciding moral protection? I can't think of any. Morality should guide our actions and adding past personhood as a criteria for granting moral protection just so I can justify abortion is an instant of actions guiding morality.

But suppose I add past personhood as a criteria for granting moral protection......I then run into contradictions. Suppose there is a house fire. Inside the house is newborn and an old man on his death bed. I can only save one. Who should I save? If I first consider future expected personhood, my choice is clear....I save the newborn. If I then consider past personhood....then I must conclude that I should save the old man who is about to die anyways.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's not a contradiction Heywood..it's a value judgement, and a poor argument for either, to be blunt.

[Heywood]

That's not a contradiction Heywood..it's a value judgement, and a poor argument for either, to be blunt.

I can see how it wouldn't be a contradiction in your mind. You make a value judgement on what standard to use to determine moral protection depending on your whim at the moment. I like to be consistent on the other hand. Having just one standard to use to determine if something should be morally protected makes it easy for me to be consistent.