5 ms·
The argument is made easier by the way we consider the end of human being. Which is why we tend to not keep former people without higher brain functions alive
by AstralStorm 4y ago
The argument is made easier by the way we consider the end of human being.
Which is why we tend to not keep former people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan.
Applying the same rule to beginning of human life arrives at the standard in Roe v Wade of around 12 weeks, which is to the best of our knowledge when higher brain functions can appear in a fetus, becoming potentially sentient human being.
- alexvoda 4y ago> Which is why we tend to not keep former people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan. Is there a well defined reason for this or is it actually a question of limited resources? Would we keep people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan if the cost was 0? Why or why not? A pragmatic viewpoint probably gives a quick answer but a ideological viewpoint could go eitherway.