Abortion...what should be the line?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So it's fine to murder a live human being as long as you call it termination?

It would be fine to end the life of a human being if it is brain dead - whatever you choose to call the action. Whether or not it is still called a human being is another question altogether. It certainly isnt a person even by your definition.

Originally posted by dj2becker
How about a live brain dead human being? Is such a person no longer a person? 😉

If you're talking about complete brain death, that would even satisfy the definition of death act that no1 posted earlier in this thread (pg. 10), and we might have good grounds to question your use of 'live' (or maybe your use of 'being'😉. And no, it wouldn't be a person.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It would be fine to end the life of a human being if it is brain dead - whatever you choose to call the action. Whether or not it is still called a human being is another question altogether. It certainly isnt a person even by your definition.

So when exactly does a human being cease to be a human being?

By saying something is not alive I presume you mean it is dead? Is that correct?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It would be fine to end the life of a human being if it is brain dead - whatever you choose to call the action. Whether or not it is still called a human being is another question altogether. It certainly isnt a person even by your definition.

And if you knew that the chances of the person resuming normal bodily functions in a few weeks time was at 100% would you still murder him?

Originally posted by LemonJello
If you're talking about complete brain death, that would even satisfy the definition of death act that no1 posted earlier in this thread (pg. 10), and we might have good grounds to question your use of 'live' (or maybe your use of 'being'😉. And no, it wouldn't be a person.

So would you kill a human being that was completely brain dead?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So would you kill a human being that was completely brain dead?

If someone is already dead can they be killed? In places which adopt the Uniform Definition of Death Act (I believe all US states do), someone completely brain dead is dead.

EDIT: And the definition given was approved by the AMA back in 1980.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So would you kill a human being that was completely brain dead?

Are you going to start with your notions that brain death is reversible?

Originally posted by LemonJello
My objection obviously enough will be to deny part (ii) of your definition. If an entity has the "ability to spontaneously develop and exhibit" said capacities, then it clearly doesn't yet possess said capacities. If it doesn't actually possess, for example, the capacity to suffer, then there is simply nothing I can do to the entity to make thing mentary rationality, self-consciousness, and suffering", but I deny that it is a person.

My objection obviously enough will be to deny part (ii) of your definition.

Right. I think the crux of our difference lies in how we qualify and define "capacity", since without any qualification, it would simply mean "the ability to do X".

To illustrate my point, let’s take a man who’s in a coma from which he’ll wake in 6 months time. Does he have the capacity to function as a person? The capacity is certainly not immediate, but rather innate and latent, not so? However, even without the immediate capacity, he is still a person.

Compare this with a man in an indefinite coma. Does he have the capacity to function as a person? I would argue that even though their physiological conditions may be identical, he lacks even latent capacity and it would therefore seem that he’d be a non-person. Your thoughts?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]My objection obviously enough will be to deny part (ii) of your definition.

Right. I think the crux of our difference lies in how we qualify and define "capacity", since without any qualification, it would simply mean "the ability to do X".

To illustrate my point, let’s take a man who’s in a coma from which he’ll wake in 6 months time. D ...[text shortened]... s even latent capacity and it would therefore seem that he’d be a non-person. Your thoughts?[/b]

Neither have the capacity to function as a person, since 'capacity' should be an assessment of the current position, not potential future ones. Temporary states of incapacity are not the same as permanent ones, so in these cases it is not the capacity of the individual to function which is of import, but rather the period of time he will remain like this. This is also the same with states of intoxication, for example.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Why shy away from calling abortionists "Baby Killers"? Isn't that your position? What's with the semantic games?

Its his game. You want to call someone that you may.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Its his game. You want to call someone that you may.
Kelly

What a hypocritical, cowardly piece of crap you are. Go blow up an abortion clinic and stop all those baby killings, hero.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What a hypocritical, cowardly piece of crap you are. Go blow up an abortion clinic and stop all those baby killings, hero.

.... it is your game, Moody Maudy ..... there is no denying.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
.... it is your game, Moody Maudy ..... there is no denying.

Well unless KellyJay is a pacifist, if he truly believes that at an abortion clinic countless numbers of innocent babies will be killed, don't you think he has a moral imperative to stop this by any means necessary?

EDIT: I would think that there's a lot here that KellyJay and you would agree on given your thesis that abortion is baby killing: http://www.armyofgod.com/JamesKopp.html

To wit: Abortionists murder helpless babies. Abortionists do not deserve legal protection.

Are the authorities who are only doing their job, keeping the abortion mills opened so babies can be killed, any different than the German Nazi guards who were only doing THEIR job keeping the ovens and gas chambers open so Jews could be killed?

Why should the safety of Dr. Slepian [doctor murdered by James Kopp] be put over the safety of unborn children?"

Originally posted by no1marauder
Well unless KellyJay is a pacifist, if he truly believes that at an abortion clinic countless numbers of innocent babies will be killed, don't you think he has a moral imperative to stop this by any means necessary?

EDIT: I would think that there's a lot here that KellyJay and you would agree on given your thesis that abortion is baby killing: http:// ...[text shortened]... ty of Dr. Slepian [doctor murdered by James Kopp] be put over the safety of unborn children?"

What about abortionists who kill viable unborn children ? These children should be protected according your own views.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
What about abortionists who kill viable unborn children ? These children should be protected according your own views.

They are; in the US at any rate.

Do you think that the killing doctors who will perform abortions in the future is morally permissable? After all, you would be saving the "lives" of the "babies" that would be otherwise "killed" which is generally considered a morally desirable act. And blowing up a few abortion clinics would be an even more effective means of preventing the great moral evil of "baby killing", wouldn't it? I think the question on the Army of God website is a good one once you accept that abortion is baby killing:

"Why should the safety of Dr. Slepian [doctor murdered by James Kopp] be put over the safety of unborn children?"