5 ms·

Those diagnoses aren't wrong, the patients' bodies spontaneously healed themselves. You didn't address my other cases. > I don't see how the fact that people

Those diagnoses aren't wrong, the patients' bodies spontaneously healed themselves. You didn't address my other cases. > I don't see how the fact that people are capable of error justifies a pretense that newborns are people. Well, you're the one proposing this radical idea that newborns aren't people (and suggesting, I believe, that it's okay to kill them because they're "not people"); you justify it. At what age or stage of development do newborns turn from not-people to people? We can't check with you on a case-by-case basis.

tialaramex 4y ago
> Those diagnoses aren't wrong, the patients' bodies spontaneously healed themselves. Such patients weren't in fact dead. They were, it turns out, very much alive and still forming memories. Resurrection is not a thing. > suggesting, I believe, that it's okay to kill them because they're "not people" Why on Earth would it be OK to kill newborns just because they aren't people? People's pet dogs aren't people either. Have you got it into your head that it's OK to just kill somebody's pet dog if you want to? It isn't. As I think I already said, the nice thing about a newborn baby from an ethical point of view is that it's not biologically dependent on the mother for life support, so you can just find somebody to adopt it. Turns out there are in fact plenty of would-be adoptive parents. > At what age or stage of development do newborns turn from not-people to people? This appears to be a gradual process. Parents will be able to tell you it really sneaks up on you. Fortunately it will almost never matter exactly when and so there's no reason to expend thought on drawing a line in the sand for something you're never going to need to care about.
- philsnow 4y ago
  I didn't say they were dead, I said their doctors diagnosed them as brain-dead. This was actually a mistake on my part; "brain dead" and "vegetative state" are not the same thing. I should have said that they were diagnosed as in a vegetative state. A key point is that they are not aware of things happening and are not forming memories. > Why on Earth would it be OK to kill newborns just because they aren't people? People's pet dogs aren't people either. Have you got it into your head that it's OK to just kill somebody's pet dog if you want to? It isn't. It wouldn't be, but what I'm driving at is that killing a newborn (or fetus) is categorically worse than killing anybody's dog. There is no calculus whereby one can say that some number of animals is "worth more" than some number of humans who may be deficient in some way (too young, unaware of their surroundings, apparently mentally handicapped, severely physically handicapped, whatever), or that killing the latter is "more okay" than killing the former.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    > what I'm driving at is that killing [...] a fetus is categorically worse than killing anybody's dog. Notice how rather than offer any rationale for why you believe this, you just state it - as if astonished that most people don't agree. You've gone from supposed "curiosity" to just re-starting your beliefs and asserting that everybody else is wrong. Most people who get there do so via dogmatic belief, that is, an insistence that there is no rationale, they don't need one because there are just some things which are correct and everyone will "obviously" believe those things. This can run into a pretty nasty problem beyond just being obviously wrong, which is that it's contrary to Freedom of Conscience and thus if you have power to "enforce" it you've got a UDHR violation...
    - philsnow 4y ago
      I'm not astonished that most people don't agree; it's not easy standing up for what you believe is the truth when it's inconvenient or unpopular. I think a lot of people would agree, though, if left alone with nothing to do except think about whether it's okay to kill a helpless person because we think they can't feel it, or are unaware of what's happening. I looked at the language in the UDHR and right there in Article 1, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." French naissant, Spanish nacen, Russian рождаются, etc. That's unfortunate. The UDHR builds on such documents as the Convention on the Rights of the Child which reads "Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s [...] disability, birth or other status." [0] (emphasis added), and the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child which reads "The child must be given the means requisite for its normal development" [1] (emphasis added). The UDHR text should read "All human beings are conceived free and equal in dignity and rights." [0] Article 2, https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-te... [1] http://www.un-documents.net/gdrc1924.htm http://www.un-documents.net/gdrc1924.htm
      - tialaramex 4y ago
        Rather than being merely "unfortunate" because it's different than either of us would prefer the choice of language was very deliberate. I think it should say "people" or perhaps "persons" but that didn't happen for a different reason that I'm sure you likewise have dogmatic beliefs about. The Declaration isn't supplied with teeth, but even without them it seems especially nonsensical to insist upon denying facts. Pregnancies are aborted spontaneously all the time, merely "conceiving" a human being means almost nothing.

tialaramex 4y ago

> Those diagnoses aren't wrong, the patients' bodies spontaneously healed themselves. Such patients weren't in fact dead. They were, it turns out, very much alive and still forming memories. Resurrection is not a thing. > suggesting, I believe, that it's okay to kill them because they're "not people" Why on Earth would it be OK to kill newborns just because they aren't people? People's pet dogs aren't people either. Have you got it into your head that it's OK to just kill somebody's pet dog if you want to? It isn't. As I think I already said, the nice thing about a newborn baby from an ethical point of view is that it's not biologically dependent on the mother for life support, so you can just find somebody to adopt it. Turns out there are in fact plenty of would-be adoptive parents. > At what age or stage of development do newborns turn from not-people to people? This appears to be a gradual process. Parents will be able to tell you it really sneaks up on you. Fortunately it will almost never matter exactly when and so there's no reason to expend thought on drawing a line in the sand for something you're never going to need to care about.

philsnow 4y ago
I didn't say they were dead, I said their doctors diagnosed them as brain-dead. This was actually a mistake on my part; "brain dead" and "vegetative state" are not the same thing. I should have said that they were diagnosed as in a vegetative state. A key point is that they are not aware of things happening and are not forming memories. > Why on Earth would it be OK to kill newborns just because they aren't people? People's pet dogs aren't people either. Have you got it into your head that it's OK to just kill somebody's pet dog if you want to? It isn't. It wouldn't be, but what I'm driving at is that killing a newborn (or fetus) is categorically worse than killing anybody's dog. There is no calculus whereby one can say that some number of animals is "worth more" than some number of humans who may be deficient in some way (too young, unaware of their surroundings, apparently mentally handicapped, severely physically handicapped, whatever), or that killing the latter is "more okay" than killing the former.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  > what I'm driving at is that killing [...] a fetus is categorically worse than killing anybody's dog. Notice how rather than offer any rationale for why you believe this, you just state it - as if astonished that most people don't agree. You've gone from supposed "curiosity" to just re-starting your beliefs and asserting that everybody else is wrong. Most people who get there do so via dogmatic belief, that is, an insistence that there is no rationale, they don't need one because there are just some things which are correct and everyone will "obviously" believe those things. This can run into a pretty nasty problem beyond just being obviously wrong, which is that it's contrary to Freedom of Conscience and thus if you have power to "enforce" it you've got a UDHR violation...
  - philsnow 4y ago
    I'm not astonished that most people don't agree; it's not easy standing up for what you believe is the truth when it's inconvenient or unpopular. I think a lot of people would agree, though, if left alone with nothing to do except think about whether it's okay to kill a helpless person because we think they can't feel it, or are unaware of what's happening. I looked at the language in the UDHR and right there in Article 1, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." French naissant, Spanish nacen, Russian рождаются, etc. That's unfortunate. The UDHR builds on such documents as the Convention on the Rights of the Child which reads "Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s [...] disability, birth or other status." [0] (emphasis added), and the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child which reads "The child must be given the means requisite for its normal development" [1] (emphasis added). The UDHR text should read "All human beings are conceived free and equal in dignity and rights." [0] Article 2, https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-te... [1] http://www.un-documents.net/gdrc1924.htm http://www.un-documents.net/gdrc1924.htm
    - tialaramex 4y ago
      Rather than being merely "unfortunate" because it's different than either of us would prefer the choice of language was very deliberate. I think it should say "people" or perhaps "persons" but that didn't happen for a different reason that I'm sure you likewise have dogmatic beliefs about. The Declaration isn't supplied with teeth, but even without them it seems especially nonsensical to insist upon denying facts. Pregnancies are aborted spontaneously all the time, merely "conceiving" a human being means almost nothing.