I don’t argue that it is OK because nobody wants it, it is OK because it doesn’t have a mind.
The cost of caring for coma patients does not come into the moral question of whether it is OK to kill them.
Simply put we grant rights to things with a mind. We take those rights away when we are sure the mind has gone.
This foray into the rights of the comatose is why I like to concentrate on the “it’s her body” arguments. They’re less murky.
I contend that the right to be born depends on whether the mother consents to it.
Otherwise, someone is “volunteering” (conscripting) her body for purposes outside of her consent.
I’m on the side of “this shouldn’t even be controversial.”
I tend to agree with you - I wouldn’t care if the fetus held a PhD from Harvard and could write little essays about why it shouldn’t be aborted. A woman still shouldn’t be forced to incubate a fetus against her will, and she should have full control over the rights to her own body.
But the argument always comes up and I do think it’s worth mentioning that a fetus just isn’t a person in any sense of the word.
Love you, like you, care about you, depend on you, whatever.
No, I said -
"Somebody wants and loves that consciousness that already is. Nobody wants the thing that might grow into consciousness.
The recovered consciousness did so without forcing anyone else to do anything they didn’t want to, particularly not risking their health and their life. The possible consciousness must do that in order to attain consciousness."
Note that this is a two part opinion - you keep wanting to focus on only the first part and ignoring the fact that the fetus must force someone else to give up her health, time, comfort and maybe her life to attain consciousness.
If he doesn’t have any way to pay for care and no one to care for him, he most likely will end up dying in the hospital.
No, all those folks don’t care for the fetus, they care about the idea of a baby. But they don’t have the right to force someone else to provide them that baby.
Surprisingly enough, I’m focusing on the part of the opinion that is irrelevant and doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t matter if “nobody” cares about the fetus, or if nobody cares about the coma patient. If every person in the world but the mother cared about the fetus, it wouldn’t matter, it’s her choice and nobody else’s. It doesn’t matter if nobody cares about the coma patient, if his care is paid for, he’ll be protected until there is no hope for his future.
Your two part opinion should be a one part opinion, because the first part is a pro-lifer’s wet dream. You invite comparison to a coma patient, then when the comparison supports protecting the fetus handwave it away and go back to the woman’s right argument.
If every person in the world but the mother cared about the fetus…they’d outlaw abortion in every country and community on earth, deny the woman her rights, put her under watch until she delivered, and applaud themselves for it.
Rights have to be defended, or else they cannot exist.
Actually it should be dependent on your directives before you go into a coma; written is but verbally expressed in a pinch. If a fetus could dictate a directive we would have a very different situation.
It should not depend on what some religious fanatic and/or politician thinks should happen to me.
I don’t know why you people are getting hung up on this. There’s a much easier way to steer this argument, and it goes like this:
People who are brain-dead can be taken off life support, because they are effectively dead. They cannot exist without direct intervention from a complex apparatus, and have no consciousness to speak of. People around the person on life support will frequently keep the person on life support, in the hopes that they will one day gain a consciousness, and that is also perfectly all right. But, as the person is, for all intents and purposes, dead currently, there is no reason why one cannot take them off life support.
Just like a fetus.
I’m not sure what I’m supposedly “hung up” on. I just like the simpler, less assailable argument of women’s rights (and by extension, individual rights) rather than delve into some battle over word definitions, namely “effectively dead”.
I’m okay with treating passive/active euthanasia as a separate issue from abortion.
Its like a parade of stupid around here. Fetuses are not effectively dead. In stark contrast to the brain dead, fetuses WILL become conscious after a period of time. Note this line
If your brain dead person had a timer set for 7 months, when he would definitely awaken, do you think anyone would take him off life support?
Apparently “effectively dead” is somewhat different than being “a little bit pregnant.”
But unlike the brain dead, they never were people. And again; treating “potential people” as actual people takes you straight to “Every Sperm is Sacred”.
How does this logic work? You protect someone who has no future, because they have a past and don’t protect someone who actually has a future because they have no past. From a public policy standpoint, I’m not sure why basing protection on a person’s past is more sensible than basing it on their future prospects.
In terms of argument, protecting someone with a future is at least as compelling an idea as protecting someone without any future prospects.
They are effectively dead (brain dead), and will become alive in a set period of time. I don’t see the contradiction here. That’s the miracle of birth, in a nutshell–the creation of life where it did not exist before.
I expect far fewer people would. Just like there are (percentage-wise) far fewer abortions than there are people taking people off life support. But it should be noted that this is not a perfect analogy, as not every fetus is guaranteed to become a healthy human. Many things can go wrong in the womb, and a number of abortions are of fetuses who are dead dead, or cannot be born alive. (You would think that those wouldn’t ‘count’ as abortions for the debate, but they are)
So what does “effectively brain dead” mean? I really don’t think the people who are going on about brain death knows what it entails.
The contradiction is seen here. You will find the definition of brain death from several medical dictionaries. One word is used in every single definition. Irreversible.
If a brain dead person is taken off life support, it’s because they have an irreversible condition, not because they don’t happen to have any brain activity today.
Whereas you’re something of an expert, eh?
Yeah, okay, that’s a good point. Conceded. You win this round.
Still, though, it seems like we’re missing a word to define the middle state before the thinking, living infant (and late stage fetus), but after the non-person flesh of sperm and eggs.
No. I just know the meaning of the word brain dead.