Roland98

Oh sheesh. If you would've quoted the rest, you can see I eliminated the EEG issue and said it was about non-consciousness.

yguy

Well of course you eliminated it, because if you hadn't, you couldn't say your stories "jibed completely", now could you?

Bad Kitty

Abe Smith/Granpa ,

I'll take a brief stab at answering your questions!

No, I'm not trying to do that. I was trying to interpret what you meant by by posting "Uh, speaking biologically, ALL (human) cells are of equal value" as if biology was an entity that could assign value, versus a person who assigns value. So I tried to imagine how my "body alone" would value various cells. I just disagree that all cells are of equal value. Why do you think they are?

Good question, which can get awfully sticky. Do items have some sort of inherent "value", or is "value" the function of someone/something feelings about the items? What do you think? It seems to me that in every day practice, value is something assigned by people, and the same item may be valued differently by different people. And HOW people decide to assign value to certain things (whether they be physical items or intangible concepts or principles) seems to be also unique, personal, and complex -- perhaps a combination of personal opinion and experience, cultural clime, society's influences, education, etc.

Hence, perhaps, the basis for our difference of opinion regarding abortion. You value those developing cells in the uterus differently than I do.


This seems similar to question 2. Sitting here thinking of it, I'm not sure there are values, in the practical sense, that are assigned by something other than man. I mean, many people value human life but don't value, say, the life of a chimpanzee. Why? Because as a society we've assigned the value to those two items differently. Does the chimp have the same value system? Does it have a value system at all? I don't know. Is the inherent vlue of these two items exactly the same, but only our "assigned value" is different? I'm not sure how I'd know.

I can tell you why *I* value a brain cell over a cell in my pinky toe (I'm sure I don't need to elaboratehere). And it seems that when we study what happens to the physical body during injury and stress, the body values protecting certain organs and functions over other organs and functions...?

Interesting thoughts. Thanks for sharing.

Michelle

Bad Kitty

Dr. Rick,

Please don't poke me with anything sharp, I'm just curious here:

Should a baby born with anencephaly have protection under our laws, or is it just a non-human thing? These children are born without a forebrain (the front part of the brain) and a cerebrum (the thinking and coordinating part of the brain). I know these children usually die within a few hours, though they can live for a few days.

Nevertheless, during those few hours or days, is the infant a "human child" with the same general rights extended to all human children? Or do they have the same rights as a rock (i.e.; none).

Regards,

Michelle

edited because I'm a terrible typist

Dr Rick

Good question, and finally, somethng interesting to discuss on this thread. Don't worry, it won't hurt:

Anencephally is a heartbreaking condition for the parents of such babies; it is a condition in which a baby is essentially born without the higher brain centers and is not compatible with long life. Most babies born this way die within hours or days, and the only treatment they are given is "comfort" care (a misnomer, since anencephlic babies cannot perceive comfort or anything else).

They have legal protection. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act applies to such babies and makes them "legal persons." This presents a strange dilemma in that anencephalic infants are not even former sentients or possible future sentients, and the diagnosis and prognosis is clear and uncontroversial.

If they could be declared non-persons, they could provide organs, but that runs the risk of going down the slippery slope.

So what do you think?

Bad Kitty

I personally feel that, regardless of their lack of a brain or a consciousness, babies with anencephaly are in fact human babies and individual persons and are therefore due the rights of any other person under our laws. They are not a rock, to me.

But feeling this way is also why I can't accept the concept that a human fetus -- whether it has a brain at that particular moment or consciousness at that particular moment -- is not due the same rights and protection.

The reasons I am often given for rejecting the idea that a fetus is, in fact, a person (to focus on that one particular issue, i.e.; "personhood", versus the entire issue of being in another person's body, etc.****) are:

1. A fetus doesn't have a brain

2. A fetus doesn't have a consciousness

3. A fetus isn't "self-aware"

4. A fetus isn't "developed enough"

5. A fetus isn't viable (before the third trimester)

I find it difficult to agree that any of these deny a fetus the same personhood and rights that children born with anencephaly or that children in vegetative states have.

*** I recognize that the concept of "personhood" isn't the ONLY thing to consider when discuss the abortion issue, but for me it is a central one.

This is the issue I struggle with the most. Because for me, all else pivots on this point... though it isn't the ONLY consideration.

Regards,

Michelle

edited because I can't type

tronvillain

TheBigZoo:
So do I, except for the opposite reason: I do not consider children with anencephaly or children in vegetative states to be people. Oh, we may grant them "rights", but it is not because they are people.

Dr Rick

Just because something is not considered a person does not mean that it must be the equivalent of a rock; I love my animals, for instance, and though I do not consider them persons, they are treated with far greater respect and consideration than most rocks.

Yes, anencephalic babies are human, but so are my sperm and the skin cells I loufa away in the shower

Anencephalic infants are not rocks, nor the equivalent of rocks, but I don't think they are persons; they, like dogs and horses, are in a gray area to me, though for different reasons. Dogs and horses are sentient, but will never be human, whereas anencephalic babies are human but never were and never will be sentient.

Okay, that's your belief, and like most subjective beliefs, it's no better nor worse than anyone elses'. But it is your belief, not everyones'; so while I can't and won't claim it is wrong, I would oppose any attempt to impose it on everyone else.

long winded fool

Your conclusion is assumed in your argument. You already know that "everyone else" doesn't include fetuses. Since TheBigZoo feels that it should, you are imposing your subjective beliefs on "everyone else" since you feel you have the right to kill fetuses who are members of "everyone else" according to your opponent. Why can you impose your beliefs (fetuses don't have rights) on pro-lifers and pro-lifers can't impose theirs (fetuses have rights) on you? Is it because you don't think you are imposing your beliefs on anyone worth considering? What if they feel the same way? Why can you disagree with their concept of life and kill living things and they can't disagree with yours and save living things? Isn't this a double standard? Shouldn't killing a living thing that might be a human who deserves rights be a far worse crime against humanity than merely taking away a human being's right to kill a living thing that might be a human who deserves rights?

...just some nagging questions...

Bad Kitty

I can understand that you might think/feel that anencephalic infants aren't persons, as you said this is a matter of opinion.

But the fact is that whether or not you believe them to be "person" they are in fact persons in the view of the law, and as such have the same rights as all other persons. Is this correct?

So my personal thinking goes like this: what is the difference between an anencephalic baby (who has no consciousness and no potential consciousness) and a early fetus (which has no consciousness but has potential consciousness)? Neither of these babies are "viable" at this point. And neither have a brain to speak of. But one does, for the short time it is alive, have rights. The other does not. One is considred a baby -- if not a person. The other is considered a "clump of cells". Is the difference location -- in or out of the womb? I mean, I doubt it is the fact that the anencephalic baby has better looking finger and toes that gives it rights. It is the fact that it was "born alive".

Well, of course here is the rub. It seems like a cruel twist of biology that gestation takes place inside another person -- and that THEIR rights must also be considered.

Hypothetically, do you think that if medical science progressed enough that fetuses could be maintained outside the womb, making a fertilized egg suddenly "viable", that this fact would change at what point a fetus would be considered a human child and therefore have rights?


Regards,

Michelle