Protecting insentient "human life"

I must of forgot, my apologies. please remind me.

edited 11th Feb '11 5:08:25 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Basically, you're making an Argument from Analogy between a zygote or other pre-sapience entity and an entity that is post-sapient. When we protect the lives of those in comas, we're not doing it to protect the body, but rather the person whose experiences predated it. That is to say, a more apt analogy would be if you snapped your fingers and created a sort of Sleeping Beauty who's never ever been awake out of thin air-there's no will to be violating.

Sort of a weird way of explaining it though. Of course, I'm sure lots of people would oppose killing such an entity there too, though I think it's around that point where we all realize how recursive this whole thing is. Some people value human life for it's own sake-not for the sake of "wills" and all that-whereas some don't. I think that the "Will" position has a greater utility as far as modeling what's important, but it's rather difficult to show that objectively.

edited 11th Feb '11 5:11:59 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

Yes that is true, there is clearly a completely different set of emotions the living have to deal with. Although the aims and arguments on both 'sides' reamin the same.

P.S. do you like my new avatar? ={

edited 11th Feb '11 5:31:05 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

hashtagsarestupid

"Some people value human life for it's own sake-not for the sake of "wills" and all that-whereas some don't." - Tomu

Frankly, I can't help but suspect that many if not most of the people making the "doesn't matter if it has feelings" argument don't really understand the issue, based on their tendency towards such faulty analogies as "what about people in vegetative states" etc...

Even the superstitious "what if it is sentient because it has a soul" argument seems relatively more sane from a priorities perspective.

edited 11th Feb '11 5:53:33 AM by neoYTPism

How so?

hashtagsarestupid

"How so" what? o.o

Wait, misread.

edited 11th Feb '11 6:26:45 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

I don't see how vegetative states are a faulty analoge.

edited 11th Feb '11 6:30:44 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Because, the reason why a "It's the Will" individual believes in protecting an individual in a persistent vegetative state is because of past will, not present will.

Something a fetus doesn't have.

edited 11th Feb '11 6:41:46 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

It always bugs me how people on this side, people who think abortion is wrong, which includes many of my own friends. Do so under the reasoning that "yes, it's a human, it becomes baby. It has all the materials to be a living human". And that's an important thing not to purge. When that thing itself doesn't mean much. It's not as if it has thoughts. Why is this so important.

And why, of all things, if this is remotely important, aren't they spending more time worrying about people who are starving, or animals that ARE feeling pain and are being killed in their adult life.

You know, there's a limit to just how egotistical first world humans can be about their existence that the mere correct of assembly of molecules for what will become a human is more important than starving humans who are thinking and feeling and in pain, and creatures of another species in pain. And what having a baby does to a mother's body, which is more damaging than having an abortion. Treating the potential for human thought and emotion as above that of the health of a woman's body is incredibly twisted morality.

I mean, to you who think a woman should just have the child and give it up for adoption, do you know what a woman goes through to endure pregnancy? If you're incredibly lucky, you'll come out with a severe case of hemorrhoids.

"What, you made a mistake? Condom broke? Too bad! Enjoy your hemorrhoids and throbbing pain. That emotionless material in your womb is more important than your pleasure, and even your physical health! Endure it!"

edited 11th Feb '11 10:36:02 AM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

" When that thing itself doesn't mean much. It's not as if it has thoughts. Why is this so important."

The same reason it's important not to kill someone who is unconscious. They are not thinking right now, but will in the normal course of things, unless they are killed.

" And why, of all things, if this is remotely important, aren't they spending more time worrying about people who are starving, or animals that ARE feeling pain and are being killed in their adult life.

You know, there's a limit to just how egotistical first world humans can be about their existence that the mere correct of assembly of molecules for what will become a human is more important than starving humans who are thinking and feeling and in pain, and creatures of another species in pain. "

That is simultaneously the worst false dichotomy and worst strawman argument I've ever seen. Bravo.

1) Caring about children and caring about starving adults are not mutually exclusive.

2) Caring about children and caring about animals are not mutually exclusive.

3) Even if caring about children and caring about animals were somehow mutually exclusive, the rights and wellbeing of humans actually matters.

"And what having a baby does to a mother's body, which is more damaging than having an abortion. Treating the potential for human thought and emotion as above that of the health of a woman's body is incredibly twisted morality."

Treating the convenience and comfort of one person as more important than the life of another is beyond twisted.

"I mean, to you who think a woman should just have the child and give it up for adoption, do you know what a woman goes through to endure pregnancy? If you're incredibly lucky, you'll come out with a severe case of hemorrhoids.

"What, you made a mistake? Condom broke? Too bad! Enjoy your hemorrhoids and throbbing pain. That emotionless material in your womb is more important than your pleasure, and even your physical health! Endure it!""

Precautions can be taken to prevent pregnancy. They have a chance of failing. If a person is unwilling to take the risk of having a child, then they shouldn't be having sex in the first place.

Freedom means responsibility. Hell, freedom is responsibility. Every action has a consequence, and the choices one makes are their own responsibility.

edited 11th Feb '11 10:53:04 AM by Wanderhome

Except people in favour of abortion rights and stem cell research don't do this, because they don't believe that zygotes or embryos are people.

Pregnancy is the risk, and if proper precautions are taken it might be a minimal (though still existing) risk. Actually having a child is preventable.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

A person who is knocked out isn't in any comparable to not even being born. That's like the all to common comparison of death to sleeping. Sleeping people are partly concious and happy. If you kill them, you take that away. People who are knocked out have brain processes, people in a coma have brain processes. When you abort "someone", at that point, the person is as similar in mind to the rest of humanity as a cockroach.

You have a limited amount of time in what you can do in life. And if you're worried about children, you should worry about the ones starving in pain in the 3rd world, not some collection of genetic material that's on it's way to becoming a child.

And it's funny how pro-life nuts, though the two are not mutually exclusive, seem to care more about caring about "children" whom are unworthy of even calling children yet, instead of real starving children in pain.

Seriously, you're talking about strawman arguments. But at no point did I call caring about unborn egg and sperm and suffering children mutually exclusive.

Are you a Vegan, then? Because you're "taking the life of another", or at least supporting it's industry, when you eat meat.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

"Except people in favour of abortion rights and stem cell research don't do this, because they don't believe that zygotes or embryos are people."

1) I don't think that anyone argues that zygotes are people.

2) As for embryos, that disagreement is the crux of the problem.

"Pregnancy is the risk, and if proper precautions are taken it might be a minimal (though still existing) risk. Actually having a child is preventable."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That it is possible to abort a child before giving birth? That's pretty well established.

"You have a limited amount of time in what you can do in life. And if you're worried about children, you should worry about the ones starving in pain in the 3rd world, not some collection of genetic material that's on it's way to becoming a child. "

1) By that argument, we shouldn't bother with education, law enforcement, or public services, because we have limited resources that could be going to starving people.

2) Again, caring about starving children in the third world and unborn children are not mutually exclusive.

3) The whole reason there is a debate here in the first place is because unborn children are not "some collection of genetic material that's on it's way to becoming a child", but are already human beings, just at a lower level of development than adults.

"A person who is knocked out isn't in any comparable to not even being born. That's like the all to common comparison of death to sleeping. Sleeping people are partly concious and happy. If you kill them, you take that away."

An unconscious individual, like the unborn, is not currently thinking. Like the unborn, unless something happens to kill them beforehand, they will be thinking again. The unborn are not conscious, but are alive. If you kill them, you take that away.

"Are you a Vegan, then? Because you're "taking the life of another", or at least supporting it's industry, when you eat meat."

No, I am not. The main reason caring about children and caring about animals are not mutually exclusive is because they are totally unrelated subjects.

Humans matter because they are people. Animals matter because they are a resource.

What about those who believe that life begins at conception?

Yes, I am aware of this. However, since the disagreement exists, it's inaccurate to accuse people who are in favour of abortion rights of treating the convenience and comfort of one person as more important than the life of another.

All I was saying is that it needn't be so black and white as you make it out to be. People who unluckily wind up with an unwanted pregnancy in spite of taking precautions against it do not have to just live with it - providing that abortion is permitted.

Edit: As a side note, I dislike how the pro-abortion rights stance is usually framed as being concerned with mere convenience and comfort. That's an understatement; even with modern medicine, pregnancy and giving birth can be extremely physically and emotionally draining. In the cases of rape victims, it could even be traumatic and psychologically damaging.

edited 11th Feb '11 11:45:09 AM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

"What about those who believe that life begins at conception?"

Actually, I was thinking of gametes when you wrote zygotes. My bad.

"Yes, I am aware of this. However, since the disagreement exists, it's inaccurate to accuse people who are in favour of abortion rights of treating the convenience and comfort of one person as more important than the life of another."

When I initially said that, it was immediately following an argument that human life starts at conception, in reply to the statement that a fetus is not a person, and that it is "twisted morality" to consider the life of an unborn child before the health of another.

EDIT: "As a side note, I dislike how the pro-abortion rights stance is usually framed as being concerned with mere convenience and comfort. That's an understatement; even with modern medicine, pregnancy and giving birth can be extremely physically and emotionally draining."

No one is saying that pregnancy is a minor inconvenience, or indeed that is anything other than an extremely trying, demanding experience. The argument being made  ^*

is that it is wrong to kill one person (who is both innocent of any responsibility for what has happened and entirely helpless) in order to spare another person hardship.

"In the cases of rape victims, it could even be traumatic and psychologically damaging."

Though it may sound both trite and harsh, life's not fair. Rape is wrong, and it is a tragedy when it happens. However, it is no less unjust for a child to be killed for the circumstances of its conception than it is for a woman to be raped.

edited 11th Feb '11 11:56:43 AM by Wanderhome

As I've said before, the reason not to kill the sleeping is not because they will awaken, but rather because they had been awake and the will of the awoken was to not be killed in their sleep.

If I was super depressed desu and wanted to die in my sleep, well, you might think the only moral decision would be to suffocate me with a pillow.

"As I've said before, the reason not to kill the sleeping is not because they will awaken, but rather because they had been awake and the will of the awoken was to not be killed in their sleep."

I would argue that the exact opposite is true.

The past is immutable. Whoever was conscious in the past was conscious in the past, whoever was not conscious in the past was not conscious in the past. Nothing we can do can change that one way or the other. Nor can the fact that one was conscious in the past change their current state of consciousness, or their future consciousness.

If you kill a man in his sleep, you do not retroactively take his past consciousness. You prevent him from regaining consciousness. If you kill a child before their first waking, you do not make them unconscious in the past, you deprive them of the consciousness they will gain.

"If I was super depressed desu and wanted to die in my sleep, well, you might think the only moral decision would be to suffocate me with a pillow."

No, I wouldn't. Freedom is responsibility. If you were "super depressed" and wanted to die, it would be your responsibility to kill yourself. It would not be the responsibility of anyone else to do it for you.

@Bobby: I suppose, phrasing something as an unearned luxury makes it seem as though taking it away is a logical step, eh?

^^ When they're dead, they won't remember that past, so they may as well never have been.

I'd argue that potential futures are irrelevent if they don't come to pass. They don't exist. Not in this reality, anyway.

^ I'm not sure what you're replying to, sorry.

edited 11th Feb '11 12:11:19 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

"I'd argue that potential futures are irrelevent if they don't come to pass. They don't exist. Not in this reality, anyway. "

Well, there aren't really any "potential" futures, only the future, which we perceive as having manifold possibilities because we are incapable of understanding and processing all the different factors that will lead to the events that will happen, but that's a different conversation.

The relevant part is, we cannot affect the past, only the future. A sleeping man might undergo cardiac arrest and die before he wakes up. When that happens, we don't say: "Oh, what that's a tragedy because he was alive before he died!" We say "Oh, that's a tragedy because he still had so much more to get from life."

In the same way, it is a tragedy when an unborn child is killed because they are not yet conscious. It means that they were deprived of thought and experience before they had a chance to get it.

I was referring to the "it's about convenience" thing.