What Der Trihs said.
If he’s truly brain dead, then yes, he’s a lump of tissue. Killing that tissue would not be murder.
Actually, there are two things Rep. Hunt said in the article quoted by crowmanyclouds which bother me.
South Dakota doesn’t have “a lot” of abortion clinics. It has one, at which abortions are performed once a week. Saying there are a lot of abortion clinics means Rep. Hunt is either unaware of the facts or exaggerating things to improve his position. Both are something I strongly dislike in a politician, even though I realize they’re typical.
The other one, from the beginning of the article is this:
I’ve suffered from severe clinical depression for most of my life, although it has been either cured or in remission of some sorts for some time now. It is a serious health concern, at least to me, and it is one which has endangered my life in the past. I’m fortunate. Therapy has worked wonders, and I don’t need to depend on drugs to live a full, functioning life. Other people I know aren’t as fortunate. Unfortunately, Rep. Hunt appears to consider these concerns trivial.
CJ
Not only that, but they bring doctors in from Minnesota, because local hostility and opposition has resulted in local doctors having to withdraw their services.
What really needs to happen here, in my opinion, is that the medical profession as a whole needs to step up and make clear that Rep. Hunt is actually correct, that health concerns do, in fact, extend beyond obvious physiological issues to encompass a variety of other factors, and that these should be taken into account in cases like this.
In Australia, there is currently no Roe v. Wade equivalent, nor any legislation that gives a right to abortion. On-demand abortion is, to a considerable extent, illegal. And yet it is actually easier to get a legal abortion in Australia than it is in many parts of the US, because the laws are written in such a way as to give broad discretion to health professionals (rather than political moralists) regarding when an abortion is in the best interests of the mother’s health.
Personally, i think Australia also ought to pass on-demand abortion legislation, but at least they’ve taken the issue, for the most part, out of the hands of religious nutjobs.
Are you and Der Trihs both just ignoring the cites I provided? Are you? Why I oughta…
I’ll try again. There are patients who experience the temporary loss of all brain functions. Zero brain activity. EEG flatliners. But they then regain their capacity for thought. It’s a f@#$ing miracle.
So…let’s start by saying I don’t care even slightly if you don’t want to call these people “brain dead.” In fact, let’s not. Let’s call them “temporarily incapable of thought.” Let’s call them “thought challenged.” Let’s call them “shy.” I don’t give a crap. But we will no longer call them “brain dead,” since this creates a distraction that is apparently too much for some of the great minds in this thread.
Anyway, do you deny these situations have occurred, whatever we call these pitiable folk? If not, then we have no disgreement of fact: there are adults who become incapable of thought–absolutely, utterly, and unquestionably without the possibility of thought–but (gasp!) they subsequently regain this capacity.
You fellas still with me? Come on, pay attention.
OK, for the period of time that the person was incapable of thought, do you disagree that he was simply a mass of tissue, well, um, incapable of thought? It would be tough to argue with this. It’s a f@#$ing mass of mindless tissue, by definition, the subsequent capacity for thought notwithstanding.
OK, while in this condition–that we will assiduously avoid referring to as “brain dead”–is this unassuming individual a person? If you put a bullet in his head, would you have destroyed a person? Or is he just a blob of tissue?
Come on, you can do it. Try to answer this question without using the forbidden words. I believe in you.
By the way, hoss, don’t think I haven’t noticed your lack of response to prior posts. The fact that you felt other posters were cowardly for not responding is, gosh, a bit ironic, woontcha say?
By the way, hoss, don’t think I haven’t noticed your lack of response to prior posts. The fact that you felt other posters were cowardly for not responding is, gosh, a bit ironic, woontcha say?
And I’m not gonna say it again.
Ok. No, in that state-which-cannot-be-named, they are not a person, IMHO, but an alive, but brainless, lump of tissue. If they, at some point in the future, will regain their brain functions, then they would assume personhood again (probably to a lesser degree, given that starving the brain of oxygen for a long length of time is guaranteed to cause damage up there).
OK. I disagree but congratulate you on your consistency at least. I have found that many people who use “thought” as the boundary that creates “personhood” still want to assign “personhood” to this person while simultaneously denying it to the fetus.
Because other people already did; I didn’t bother.
They were simply deeply unconscious; the underlying person was still there, just shut down. Not hard to understand, except for “pro life” fools.
I blogged about this on Monday. This is a fine example of “in a perfect world” legislation that the Right seems to love these days. In a perfect world, abstinance-only sex education would work, and no one would ever get abortions. And all we have to do is make it illegal, without considering why people get abortions in the first place, and everything will be perfect forever.
What I want to know is whether these politicians are stupid, or lazy (or both).
Stratocaster
Sorry to intrude on the discussion at hand but I’ve been itching to ask some pro-lifers this hypothetical and didn’t consider it meaty enough to deserve its own thread.
Let’s say you’re trapped in a burning building (because, after all, what hypothetical situation is complete without one?). With you in this building are a 3 year old girl and a petri dish with 5 fertilised embryo’s in it. For reasons I’ll leave to your imagination, you can only pick one. Which do you pick?
Also, sorry if this question or any variant has already been asked and answered. I would’ve read the whole thread but it does have, like, a bajillion posts in it already and I wanted to pose my question before the heat death of the universe. Thanks 
Seems a bit cowardly to me.
This from the biggest f@#$ing fool on this board. You’re in denial, sparky. The person in question is incapable of thought at that moment. You stated a dozen or so times in this thread a variation on the notion that it is thought that gives an entity value, that makes him human. “Shut down” = “no thought.” And now you can’t admit that this is an inconsistency. Whatever.
What occasion placed five embryos in a petri dish? What are they destined for? What are their chances of survival?
SHoud have asked this previously. Would there be anything “wrong” about killing the person in this state? If so, what makes it wrong? Thanks.
If we’re talking about the action itself, no, it is not inherently wrong to kill that person (of course, I don’t believe any action is inherently wrong, but I just thought i’d put that clear).
Is it wrong subjectively? Probably, because likely people are emotionally attached to the person they were/may yet regain. Their family have grown up with them, they have friends, partners. All these people are going to be very sad should you walk in and shoot the guy (angry too, probably). I believe sadness is a thing to be avoided, so yes, killing him would be wrong.
Your cop out to the question asked, shows you value a child already born to the 5 embryos. What difference would it make how or what they were destined for?
Monavis
The occasion? Hmm, not really sure. Can I leave that up to your imagination?
The embryo’s are destined for use in a new, maximally effective, form of IVF treatment. Their chances of survival, once implanted, are 100%.
Gotcha. Thanks.