Ok, I am not arguing about brain death. That is fine by me if we interpret brain death to be death. But this discussion arose from talking about abortion and when a fetus is viably a living human. A pregnant woman along with a physician can legally kill a developing fetus, at least until late stages, whether someone believes it is a viable living human or not. Within certain parameters, that is legal. We also kill people, “legally” in wars and military actions, quite frequently. We essentially perform euthanasia somewhat regularly in “palliative care”. People are legally killed in actions of self defense. Death row inmates are sometimes killed. Legal killing of live humans is a regular occurrence in our society.
Citizenschallenge-v.3
Participant
(Oh and a little clarity would help – instead of op-ed why not name which writer you’re talking about – all three piece can be considered opinion pieces.)
Notice where I pointed out the inconsistency of maternal mortality and abortion law.
Notice how only one piece covers that.
Technically speaking, life begins at conception. The brain develops later but “life” has to start before that point.
Any sort of hair-splitting over that just muddies the reality IMO.
In that case, just out of curiosity, would that, in your opinion, mean that brain dead humans on life support are still, technically, live humans?
Legal killing of live humans is a regular occurrence in our society.Which is irrelevant to determining whether a particular elective abortion is right or wrong.
@thatoneguy
<div class=“bbp-reply-content”>
Technically speaking, life begins at conception. The brain develops later but “life” has to start before that point.Any sort of hair-splitting over that just muddies the reality IMO.
</div>
No, there exists no such technical evidence of any such thing.
“Life” means “the life of a human being”, not the life of a human cell. A human cell is alive, but has no right to life and is not a human life.
Human life requires a functioning brain. There is no such thing as an individual living human being with either 0 or 2 functioning brains. Every living human being has precisely 1 functioning human brain.
A collection of cells that does not have a brain at all cannot be a living human being. A fetus with a functioning brain is an individual distinct from her mother because her mother can only have 1 functioning brain and it is impossible for her mother to have 2 functioning brains.
By conception do you mean the sperm entering the egg? That would be before it implants, so we would have to test for that every time we had sex, or else you could be accused of killing someone. Not to mention taking extraordinary measures to prevent all the spontaneous abortions that occur, often without anyone knowing a fertilize egg has implanted. Again, women would have to constantly be making appointments to check for a living soul in their womb and doing whatever it takes to keep it alive. And why start there anyway, why isn’t the egg just as precious? If we declared sperm a living being it would be impossible to save every one of them, but they are alive, and even for a second outside the womb, why aren’t we doing everything possible to save them? The answer to that is the same for a blastocyst.
My point is that even if we do determine that a fetus is a living human, at some point, even it that is at 5 weeks (e.g. if it has a heartbeat) must not, IMO, preclude a woman’s right to have control of her body.
Lausten, thanks for advocating for the rights of sperm. How many billions of sperm are dying everyday? In the words of a famous song: “Every sperm is precious. Every sperm is good.”
My point is that even if we do determine that a fetus is a living human, at some point, even it that is at 5 weeks (e.g. if it has a heartbeat) must not, IMO, preclude a woman’s right to have control of her body.First, a human being is not alive by virtue of a heartbeat. The heart will continue to beat even after being removed from the body. The heart will continue to beat even after the brain dies. The heart is just a pump. We need the heart to pump to continue to be alive, but to say we are alive because the heart is pumping is to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
More importantly, no, an individual right to bodily control does not supersede the right to life of another individual. Parents are required to continue to provide life supporting sustenance to their own helpless child. If I am alone with my baby in the crib my right to control my body onto an airplane and fly away leaving my helpless child to die of neglect is superseded by my child’s right to life.
Such neglect by a parent is, and very well should be, a very serious crime.
Once the baby is a living human being in utero the right of bodily control of the mother is superseded by the right to life of the baby.
Psyche:
“…Once the baby is a living human being in utero the right of bodily control of the mother is superseded by the right to life of the baby.”
TimB: I don’t think that is necessarily true. Let’s say that a person 1 decided to help out a person 2. Person 2 can only continue to live if he is hooked up, intravenously, with another person. Person 1 has agreed to this, but after a number of weeks or months, decides for whatever reason, that he does not want to be hooked up by IV with person 2 any longer. Person 2 will die shortly after being disconnected. Is person 1 no longer able to be in control of his own body, because the life of person 2 depends on the continued use of person 1’s body?
Stardusty Psyche No, there exists no such technical evidence of any such thing.It is a basic fact of biology.
“Life” means “the life of a human being”, not the life of a human cell. A human cell is alive, but has no right to life and is not a human life. Human life requires a functioning brain. There is no such thing as an individual living human being with either 0 or 2 functioning brains. Every living human being has precisely 1 functioning human brain. A collection of cells that does not have a brain at all cannot be a living human being. A fetus with a functioning brain is an individual distinct from her mother because her mother can only have 1 functioning brain and it is impossible for her mother to have 2 functioning brains.Sounds like you are confusing life with "personhood".
If person 2 is your minor child your responsibility is to remain connected unless and until you can arrange for an orderly transfer of support to another person or a machine such that your child is not substantially harmed.
If you think it is OK to just jerk the tube, watch your child struggle and die, because you have other stuff you wanna do, then you are one sick puppy.
It is a basic fact of biology.Vacuous respo0nse absent any rational argumentation. You could just as reasonably said "cuz said so"
Sounds like you are confusing life with “personhood”.Sounds like you did not read what I wrote. "Life" in general is not the same as "human life"
A tree is alive. A cell on my tongue is alive. A worm is alive. None of these things are a human life.
A human life is a person. A human life has an intrinsic right to life in our law and by consensus among nearly all human beings. A human life is a human being and has personhood.
A human cell, or a human organ other than the brain does not have personhood and is not a human life and is not a human being.
A human life, or a human being, or a person has 1 brain. Not 0 or 2 brains. Specifically, 1 brain per person, per human life, per human being.
When a person’s brain ceases to function then their human life has ended. The heart might still be pumping. The other internal organs might still be functioning. But if the brain dies the person dies. Personhood is determined by the functioning of a human brain. With a functioning human brain you are a living human being, a human life, a living person. Absent a functioning human brain there is no human life, no human being, no person.
Stardusty Psyche, When does a brain start functioning?
When fertilization occurs, there is only one cell and no brain, so you should accept that there are circumstances where it is logical to choose the wellbeing of the living mother over the single cell. As cells divide and the embryo grows, for a time there are no neurons so there is still no issue with abortion. Eventually some cells differentiate into spots where neurons start to differentiate, but there is still no brain, so there is still no rational argument for preventing abortion. This development continues until there is a fully viable fetus, at which point there are serious ethical and moral issues involved in abortion.
At what point is the line crossed? What criteria do you use to find where you draw your line in the sand?
I don’t know where to draw the line because I don’t know anything about the brain function of fetuses.
I think something is more important than us knowing where to draw the line. All of us in this discussion are apparently males rather than females of child-bearing age with a functioning uterus. Seriously let them get together and decide. We are not, have not, and never will be pregnant.
TimB, that’s true, but just because the vast majority of law-makers have been men and this has a greater impact on women, doesn’t mean men should not even think about it or have no say in it.
This is a human and societal discussion, not a gender one. We can all participate in determining how we write a law that affects one gender more than another, because it does affect us all.
Placing a time-limit on abortion is one of the most emotionally charged topics around. I’m not even wading in with an opinion, I’m just trying to see how others come to their position.
Granted that what women do in regards to their pregnancies has a most profound effect on societies, and potentially even the existence of mankind. But you cannot say that gender is not a critical part of the discussion, as this is patently false. It is about women of child bearing age who have a functioning uterus and any sort of access to sperm.
So basically, what is being discussed is how much control men, and other women, and society have over those women’s body, in regards to what they do when pregnant.
Granted, we have, in the past had laws where men were exclusively forced, by law, to go to war, with the high probability of being killed, maimed, or otherwise screwed up. What I am suggesting would be tantamount to having healthy men of draftable age, deciding on that law. However, during WWII, one could reasonably argue that all of our society was ultimately at risk, without that law, at that time. Is all of society at risk, nowadays, if some women have an abortion? I don’t think so. In fact, I think our society will be better off if they can choose.