3 ms·

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

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.
    - philsnow 4y ago
      What "dogmatic beliefs" are you referring to here, that innocent and helpless people deserve our protection? I don't think that's controversial. We're not animals. I'm well aware pregnancies are commonly spontaneously aborted, but the key word there is spontaneously, "without apparent cause or stimulus", i.e. not through the choice or neglect of the mother.
      - tialaramex 4y ago
        > What "dogmatic beliefs" are you referring to here [...] We're not animals. See, you didn't need any help. Given that some were insistent that humans are not animals, and others were insistent that some ethnic or religious groups of humans aren't people, the resolution was to highlight that the latter claim is wrong, and give up on the other claim for the time being. This means that status of other species (e.g. octopuses) is not recognised in the UDHR. Arguably a realistic setting of priorities, but still unfortunate in my view of course. > the key word there is spontaneously So how is your intuition for other spontaneous events? If your child is spontaneously struck down by Influenza, too bad - they live or die and you're not bothered either way? If a work colleague falls down the stairs, and others present just leave them there, a motionless heap, stepping over the body - does that seem right to you?
        philsnow 4y ago
        > So how is your intuition for other spontaneous events? If your child is spontaneously struck down by Influenza, too bad - they live or die yes > and you're not bothered either way? of course I'd be bothered. elsewhere in this thread I mentioned grieving the loss of the two miscarriages that my wife and I knew about. > If a work colleague falls down the stairs, and others present just leave them there, a motionless heap, stepping over the body - does that seem right to you? Either you or I or both of us have really lost the thread here... I guess the falling down the stairs might be considered spontaneous but the others stepping over him instead of helping him is deliberate and probably reprehensible.

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.
  - philsnow 4y ago
    What "dogmatic beliefs" are you referring to here, that innocent and helpless people deserve our protection? I don't think that's controversial. We're not animals. I'm well aware pregnancies are commonly spontaneously aborted, but the key word there is spontaneously, "without apparent cause or stimulus", i.e. not through the choice or neglect of the mother.
    - tialaramex 4y ago
      > What "dogmatic beliefs" are you referring to here [...] We're not animals. See, you didn't need any help. Given that some were insistent that humans are not animals, and others were insistent that some ethnic or religious groups of humans aren't people, the resolution was to highlight that the latter claim is wrong, and give up on the other claim for the time being. This means that status of other species (e.g. octopuses) is not recognised in the UDHR. Arguably a realistic setting of priorities, but still unfortunate in my view of course. > the key word there is spontaneously So how is your intuition for other spontaneous events? If your child is spontaneously struck down by Influenza, too bad - they live or die and you're not bothered either way? If a work colleague falls down the stairs, and others present just leave them there, a motionless heap, stepping over the body - does that seem right to you?
      - philsnow 4y ago
        > So how is your intuition for other spontaneous events? If your child is spontaneously struck down by Influenza, too bad - they live or die yes > and you're not bothered either way? of course I'd be bothered. elsewhere in this thread I mentioned grieving the loss of the two miscarriages that my wife and I knew about. > If a work colleague falls down the stairs, and others present just leave them there, a motionless heap, stepping over the body - does that seem right to you? Either you or I or both of us have really lost the thread here... I guess the falling down the stairs might be considered spontaneous but the others stepping over him instead of helping him is deliberate and probably reprehensible.