4 ms·

> Scientifically, "a human" is an alive organism of the species "Homo sapiens." You seem to be conflating linguistics with biology. If we agree to change the d

by hbrn 4y ago

> Scientifically, "a human" is an alive organism of the species "Homo sapiens." You seem to be conflating linguistics with biology. If we agree to change the definition of a word "human", this isn't going to make pro-lifers happy, because their problem is not with words. Also, I don't think "human" means alive Homo Sapiens. Human and Homo Sapiens are synonyms. > A blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is undisputedly alive But that's exactly what is being disputed. For example a braindead person is "undisputedly" dead, yet an embryo has even less brain activity.

User23 4y ago
> For example a braindead person is "undisputedly" dead No, they’re not. If they were indisputably dead we’d just say dead. The qualifier means it’s something other than actually dead. You could quibble that after medical death biological processes continue in various cells and organs for a while though. And of course there’s the old first responder’s adage that the patient isn’t dead until he’s warm and dead. Cold and dead, as in fished out of ice water, isn’t necessary dead dead.
- svnt 4y ago
  They do not have agency and so are functionally dead.
  - User23 4y ago
    This is a good example of a premise that isn’t generally acceptable. If we agree that persons who lack agency have no right to not be killed then we can kill infants, the severely mentally ill, involuntarily commited persons, and arguably severely physically disabled persons. Not to mention, determining who does and doesn’t have agency and thus a right to not be killed strikes me as considerably trickier than the basic medical definition of dead, which is basically no heartbeat. Hence the observation that cold and dead might not really be dead. Severe hypothermia can make the pulse undetectable.
    - hbrn 4y ago
      > basic medical definition of dead, which is basically no heartbeat This is an extremely reductive statement. There is no unified medical definition of death, precisely because it's a highly controversial topic. Closest to what you're trying to say is UDDA (which, ironically, is currently being revised), and it explicitly mentions brain death: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Determination_of_Death_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Determination_of_Death...
- hbrn 4y ago
  See how casually throwing in the word "undisputable" in a discussion of a controversial topic triggers a dispute?

by hbrn 4y ago

User23 4y ago

> For example a braindead person is "undisputedly" dead No, they’re not. If they were indisputably dead we’d just say dead. The qualifier means it’s something other than actually dead. You could quibble that after medical death biological processes continue in various cells and organs for a while though. And of course there’s the old first responder’s adage that the patient isn’t dead until he’s warm and dead. Cold and dead, as in fished out of ice water, isn’t necessary dead dead.

svnt 4y ago
They do not have agency and so are functionally dead.
- User23 4y ago
  This is a good example of a premise that isn’t generally acceptable. If we agree that persons who lack agency have no right to not be killed then we can kill infants, the severely mentally ill, involuntarily commited persons, and arguably severely physically disabled persons. Not to mention, determining who does and doesn’t have agency and thus a right to not be killed strikes me as considerably trickier than the basic medical definition of dead, which is basically no heartbeat. Hence the observation that cold and dead might not really be dead. Severe hypothermia can make the pulse undetectable.
  - hbrn 4y ago
    > basic medical definition of dead, which is basically no heartbeat This is an extremely reductive statement. There is no unified medical definition of death, precisely because it's a highly controversial topic. Closest to what you're trying to say is UDDA (which, ironically, is currently being revised), and it explicitly mentions brain death: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Determination_of_Death_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Determination_of_Death...
hbrn 4y ago
See how casually throwing in the word "undisputable" in a discussion of a controversial topic triggers a dispute?