Wicknight wrote: » Aren't you killing an innocent life when you eat food, or blink your eyes? I presume you hold that human life is more valuable. The question then becomes why is human life more valuable than non-human life? Or why are some lives (humans, apes, dolphins, horses) more valuable than other lives (cows, fish, bacteria, lettuce) Once it is established what properly these life forms have that makes them valuable you have to ask the question does the fetus have this properly and at what stage? Does it gain this property before conception, after conception, after implantation, after the embryo forms, after birth? If someone can do this I'll listen to their argument even if it is different to my position, but this nonsense that human life is valuable just because is pointless.
sold wrote: » Lets get rid of all religious talk, even you know you would like to be treated with respect for who you are, this is you natural inclination,.
The Corinthian wrote: » That would be fair enough as an argument except for two points: The first that having a clearer definition is pretty essential, given the stakes, and to date Nozz has avoided this like the plague.
The Corinthian wrote: » Secondly, the foetus is not the only entity that may fail to qualify, and two other scenarios have been raised. The first (you have it but lose it) has been addressed by the "once you have rights you can't lose them" caveat.
The Corinthian wrote: » The second is where one may never develop such faculties - and this has not yet been addressed.
The Corinthian wrote: » I would also add that even if we accept Nozz's or any other position, it should be taken as starting point for rights (or 'personhood') not as an automatic right to life. The right to life is not absolute in all cases; a man requiring a lung to live cannot force a compatible doner to part with one of theirs, even though both would live if he did and he would die if not.
sold wrote: » Humanity is the centre of creation, the only animal capable of knowing itself consciously.
sold wrote: » If we follow your argument then YOUR life has no value.
sold wrote: » If humanity looses the sense of its own dignity and value then it becomes relative to the whims of the day, .. I love my family but the staving in africa are not my problem
sold wrote: » As soon as you remove the objective value of mankind, then hundreds subjective views replace this and you end up with a world where "To be human" is not a value we all hold as central.
Wicknight wrote: » Simply because it is difficult to define exactly what we are talking about (scientists and philosophers have been trying to tie down "consciousness" for years) doesn't invalidate the reasoning leading up to the point though.
Well I don't actually agree with that, for example I see no issue in killing a brain dead patient.
Well that is sort of different issue, the right to life is normally taken as the right not to be killed not the right to live at the expense of others.
Isn't ethics fun
The Corinthian wrote: » It's pretty difficult to assess the reasoning of something that is undefined. We can hardly test its validity if we do not even know what exactly we are testing.
The Corinthian wrote: » No one is suggesting brain death.
The Corinthian wrote: » and one guess would be the cognitive ability unique to our species (actually, he did previously cite that our ability to conceive rights is what should ascribe them to us). In this regard, some of our species can be born without this facility. Intellectually, they are on the same level as lesser primates - or lower.
The Corinthian wrote: » Additionally, I would call into question the logic behind maintaining rights even after the facility is lost (e.g. through accident). If this faculty is what defines us as people, then how can we still be people after it is no longer there?
The Corinthian wrote: » And people do have the right to live at the expense of others - if they didn't we wouldn't have a welfare system.
Wicknight wrote: » I think the reasoning for what we value in human existence is sound. It is the higher functions of the human brain, I think most people would acknowledge that if they thought about it (yes a bit no true scots man, anyone feel free to present a counter argument) The tricky part then comes in define exactly what we are talking about in this regard, just like it is tricky to define exactly why we think the Mona Lisa is beautiful. But the reasoning still holds.
Was it not being suggested that once you have "rights" based on the development of your brain you cannot lose them while still alive? Sorry I haven't read all the posts
That is fine but it is not my argument, so I can't really comment. Like I said I disagree
metrovelvet wrote: » The Louvre keeps the mona lisa not because she us beautiful, but because she is a davinci. If the artist was unknown or uncertain the painting would probably not be there and would not have the artistic or material value ascribed to it. So certainty does matter. But we are not talking about art collecting here. We are talking about life and death so before you commit genocide your definitiins should be pretty clear and certain.
Wicknight wrote: » I am certain that a fetus that has not yet developed a working nervous and brain does not have the criteria I consider valuable.
The Corinthian wrote: » So someone who, through an accident, becomes severely mentally handicapped, should not posses these rights?
metrovelvet wrote: » So I would gather that in Nozzy's book, someone with partial brain damage, whether through accident or whatever would not have the right go life. I hope he makes sure to tell his next of kin in case they are faced with such a choice. Yikes.
drkpower wrote: » He has also said that the key date is when 'the faculty begins to form', and that the issue is not whether the faculty exists, but if the the parts that create the faculty are present. He has also said that the thalamo-cortical complex is the faculty. Of course, the thalamo-cortical complex 'begins to form' at about 6-9 weeks when its constituent parts begin to form. And then he said that the only way you can determine if the faculty is present is through EEG (electrical) activity, when previously he had said that 'function is not important/relevent. But electrical activity only measures function, not the presence of anatomical structires; that is done by cadaver study, amongst other things. So it just isnt clear what his point is. And where he gets 20 weeks (minus 4 weeks) from. Add to all this the fact that the journals he uses to back up whatever it is he believes, themselves state that this area of science is a 'complex puzzle' or words to that effect. Yet this science is supposedly going to be used to establish the legal status of life, perhaps the most fundamental issue facing humans.....?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Why? Because of what I keep telling you but that you have been ignoring.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Again to help you out. We know where things like beleif and conciousness occour at the level of the brain. Within this thread I even showed peer reviewed science showing how we measure things like belief at the level of the brain..
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » As I said my position is entirely falsifiable and if you can indeed show any scientific evidence of human consciousness at the 6-9 weeks that you referred to, I would be forced to instantly change my position. You appear to be entirely unable to do so however.
metrovelvet wrote: » You are certain in your belief, not in your knowlege.
The Corinthian wrote: » Well, TBH it really comes down to what "the faculty" is. This can be lost -
drkpower wrote: » No; you showed us a paper that came to a possible conclusion
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I have already told you what this faculty is. It is the faculty of human consciousness. You do know what consciousness is right?
I find the answer simple. Human consciousness, as opposed to all the other animals consciousness, is the only faculty of consciousness that to our knowledge has a concept of rights that others do not.
You talk of people losing is. If they LOSE it this is called “Death” and at this point rights no longer exist for that entity. That is important as you keep using the word lost. If it is entirely and wholly and completely lost then this patient is not handicapped. This patient is dead.
Irrelevant. It is Human consciousness that I have elevated in this discussion. These people still have that faculty. It is curtailed, it is damaged, and if the entire species entered the same state the whole notion of rights would likely be lost. But it is still Human Consciousness they have. Human consciousness as a whole is what creates rights, assigns and defines them. It is therefore TO human consciousness I feel we assign them. Human consciousness as a whole. This is the point I have been trying to hammer home since the start.
All of these entities contain the faculty, they are just not operating on the level that yours and mine are.
metrovelvet wrote: » He 's trying to say (I think) that it's not the faculty of conciousness, consciencd, sentience or whatever the mot du jour is that qualifies one's right to life but the capacity to generate the faculty. So the capacity to generate the faculty remains, even if the faculty itself is gone, like a dead battery.
After I had been there for a little while, patients in the practice began to ask me if I was going to do abortions like my father did. And I was horrified, because the only thing worse than a woman that was request an abortion, was the physician that would do the abortion. So I was outraged, why would these people, that my dad had provided quality health care for over an extended period of time, say that he was a scumbag type physician? Well, so, I started going back through the charts, see who had...what chart looked like somebody might have had an abortion. So I began to ask some of these women, and I found out there were more than one or two. Here's what happened - in 1945, 46, or 47, a young woman who my dad had already delivered two babies came to him pregnant again right away, and she said something to the effect of, "I can't take it, can you help me?" And those are the two common denominators, that is the way you ask for an abortion from your regular doctor before abortion was legal. At least then, that's my impression. That was the common denominator, "I can't take it, can you help me?" My dad said, "No, big families.., by the time the baby gets here everything will be alright." She went out, had a non-healthcare provider abortion, came back 10 days to 2 weeks later and died. Now, I have had the unique experience of delivering 2 and 3 babies for Tiller Family Practice patients, second and third generation babies. I know what that neat relationship is between the physician and the woman for whom he delivers 2 or 3 babies. I've had that relationship, it's a neat relationship. Having had that relationship, I can understand how upset my father was. I do not know whether he did a hundred abortions or 200 abortions or 300 abortions, I think it may have been something like 200 over a period of about 20 years, but I don't know for sure. I'm a woman-educated physician. I don't know how many abortions he did, but the women in my father's practice for whom he did abortions educated me and taught me that abortion is not about babies, it's not about families, it's about women's hopes and dreams, potential the rest of their lives - abortion is a matter of survival for women.
It's not what's out there that makes a difference, it's what's in here. It is what you want to do if you have an understanding that this is a matter of survival for women and you are interested in helping women survive, then this is for you. It is not for you, if it is not an inner calling, it just isn't. It doesn't work that way. It's not the technical component, it's not the intellectual stimulation, abortion services are a heart issue. It's a heart issue, and if you have a willing heart to help women in catastrophic situations, you can be an abortion provider. You can qualify and have a satisfactory life. There are probably more physicians who get shot working in an emergency room than are abortion clinics. There are all sorts of dangers - postal workers, firemen, police officers. Everything has a risk to it. I would prefer, personally, to have a challenging, stimulating, emotionally and spritiually-rewarding career that is short, rather than have a long one that is filled with ho-hum, mundane mediocrity, feeling as if you don't make any difference to people. You will make a difference in women's lives... if making a significant difference in women's lives is important to you, having a career as an abortion provider will be an emotionally gratifying and tremendously stimulating occupation for you. If it's sort of something you select intellectually, it'll turn to salt in your mouth really quick and you'll be gone.
The Corinthian wrote: » Or perhaps that "capacity to generate the faculty" is developing, in the case of infants, and not yet at the same level as the rest of us? Then we end up in the 'potential' argument that could easily be applied to a foetus. After all, it's not quite there yet.
The Corinthian wrote: » It may be more developed than in a foetus, but the bottom line is that it is still a potential, not an actual.
Wicknight wrote: » The developing infant problem seems to be some what of a straw man as I've never heard anyone arguing a similar position to mine claim that the valuable essence of the human mind, as difficult as it is to define properly, is something that does not exist in a human baby.
Based on what criteria?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I find the answer simple. Human consciousness, as opposed to all the other animals consciousness, is the only faculty of consciousness that to our knowledge has a concept of rights that others do not. Therefore it is human consciousness itself that is elevated in this discussion.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Again you are equivocating over “levels” of consciousness within the realm of human consciousness. You are free to do that ad nausea, but my position is based on human consciousness as a whole from start to finish. Therefore these internal equivocations based on infants and the handicapped are entirely irrelevant to the position I am espousing here.
Infants and the damaged HAVE this faculty, it is just not operating on the same level as ours. Nor is ours operating on the same level as some people on this planet who are beyond either of us.
The Corinthian wrote: » Hardly a rebuttal, let alone a straw man. Had you considered the possibility that the reason you never heard anyone arguing a similar position to yours claim this is because those who argue such a position would not raise it simply because it would put the position into question?
