Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr Rick · 07-24-2003, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
Then why do the courts allow the family to make the decision when someone is clinically brain dead? It seems like there are two conflicting ideals going on here when there should only be one.

In both cases, the courts allow the withdrawal of support, but not euthanasia. A person that is "brain dead" is not necessarilly legally dead. You can't bury a brain dead person that is breathing on his own, for instance, nor can you harvest his organs for transplant. That was the condition of the Florida baby.

Amen-Moses · 07-24-2003, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
In both cases, the courts allow the withdrawal of support, but not euthanasia. A person that is "brain dead" is not necessarilly legally dead. You can't bury a brain dead person that is breathing on his own, for instance, nor can you harvest his organs for transplant. That was the condition of the Florida baby.

Do they have to legally keep feeding them?

Over here a family can opt to remove the feeding part so even if they are breathing on their own they will die from starvation (or rather lack of fluid intake).

Amen-Moses

Dr Rick · 07-24-2003, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
Do they have to legally keep feeding them?

Absolutely not.

abe smith · 07-25-2003, 06:28 AM

(Actually it's not that irrelevant...) There're 2 gametes, right? And at a point not-altogether-yet-made-certainable, the ("male") spermatozoon's um.... material unites w/ the ovum's material to produce what human practice calls "the zygote".
Now it is presently a matter of (theological?) *opinion*, whether to call that zygote = fertilized human egg-cell, a "person" or not. If I have my data correct (?), the Roman Catholic *sect* assert (They are just a bunch of human beings like all the rest of us.) that "the soul" (an asserted & never-substantiated human fiction) is introduced? (or whatever verb they use, "created de novo"?) at the instant of "fertilization" -- which may not BE "an instant" at-all.
Now you have this zygote w/ its instantly-implaced "soul", which fact MAKES it a "human person", instanter, right? (Does it? Sez who?)
And, (somewhere some cell-divisions further down the road), that proliferating zygote becomes a grape-cluster-like mass of wildly-undifferentiated cells wh human medical personnel label "a hyatidiform mole" (And I'm pretty-sure my spelling is erroneous). Now this cell-cluster is not, and will NEVER develop into a human fetus, nor a human baby, neither before nor after birth. What about that "SOUL" in there, Friends?
A question no one has answered.
The old RC sect's practise (maybe still is) was to baptise EVERYTHING that came out of/was taken from a human uterus; on the offchance that it DID have a soul in there. This seems however to conflict w/ the (also RC sect's) practise of not baptising "miscarriages", that is, spontaneous abortions.
Hence "it is easy to see" that the whole question is essentially cluttered-up w/ unresolved paradoxes; and why shd anyone believe anything of the conflicting human *opinions*about it?

View Poll Results: when does a human being have access to the protection of the laws of our land?
after conception	9	12.86%
3 months after conception	7	10.00%
6 months after conception	15	21.43%
9 months after conception	3	4.29%
after birth	33	47.14%
18 years after birth	3	4.29%
Voters: 70. You may not vote on this poll

07-25-2003, 06:28 AM	#194
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	This's praps irrelevant to this thread, Michelle (Actually it's not that irrelevant...) There're 2 gametes, right? And at a point not-altogether-yet-made-certainable, the ("male") spermatozoon's um.... material unites w/ the ovum's material to produce what human practice calls "the zygote". Now it is presently a matter of (theological?) opinion, whether to call that zygote = fertilized human egg-cell, a "person" or not. If I have my data correct (?), the Roman Catholic sect assert (They are just a bunch of human beings like all the rest of us.) that "the soul" (an asserted & never-substantiated human fiction) is introduced? (or whatever verb they use, "created de novo"?) at the instant of "fertilization" -- which may not BE "an instant" at-all. Now you have this zygote w/ its instantly-implaced "soul", which fact MAKES it a "human person", instanter, right? (Does it? Sez who?) And, (somewhere some cell-divisions further down the road), that proliferating zygote becomes a grape-cluster-like mass of wildly-undifferentiated cells wh human medical personnel label "a hyatidiform mole" (And I'm pretty-sure my spelling is erroneous). Now this cell-cluster is not, and will NEVER develop into a human fetus, nor a human baby, neither before nor after birth. What about that "SOUL" in there, Friends? A question no one has answered. The old RC sect's practise (maybe still is) was to baptise EVERYTHING that came out of/was taken from a human uterus; on the offchance that it DID have a soul in there. This seems however to conflict w/ the (also RC sect's) practise of not baptising "miscarriages", that is, spontaneous abortions. Hence "it is easy to see" that the whole question is essentially cluttered-up w/ unresolved paradoxes; and why shd anyone believe anything of the conflicting human opinionsabout it?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.