Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I would agree with that. The inherent moral value comes from personhood (being self-aware, and probably also part of society), not from the biological fact of life.
So the mentally incapable and comatose have no value? By your standards, they would seem to be un-persons.
But that does not make your grandmother less of a person. Your mother does not possess your grandmother's rights; she is merely their custodian. A person has the right as a self-owner to kill himself, but (self-defense aside) nobody has the right to kill another, even those in their custody. If mothers have the right to kill their unborn offspring, they must be said to own that which they are killing. Do you agree with the idea that a human life can be owned by another?
Not sure what you mean with mentally incapable. People with mental handicaps still are self aware for all I know. And since even the brain of a comatouse is still working in some way, self-awareness may still be there (certainly the case for someone in a vigil coma). And both are still part of society through their family and friends.So the mentally incapable and comatose have no value? By your standards, they would seem to be un-persons.
why does one need to own what they are killing? Do I need to take legal posession of a spider before I can kill it?McFall said:If mothers have the right to kill their unborn offspring, they must be said to own that which they are killing. Do you agree with the idea that a human life can be owned by another?
Are you certain of this? I never heard of such a case, and considered in impossible. Have any links?McFall said:There have been brain-dead people who have regained cognitive abilities.
Yes I am assuming personhood, because the combination of DNA - the literal creation of human life - is the only distinction that I believe is clear enough to establish it. There have been brain-dead people who have regained cognitive abilities. Could they have been justly destroyed while their brain was not emitting signals?
I believe that human life is a good thing in and of itself, and that makes its needless ending wrong. It is a qualitative, not quantitative standard.
There are combinations of DNA that create children with no brain outside of the stem. Since it is a human life, should the mother be forced to carry it to term even though it will never acheive awareness and live outside the womb for a mere handful of days?Yes I am assuming personhood, because the combination of DNA - the literal creation of human life - is the only distinction that I believe is clear enough to establish it. There have been brain-dead people who have regained cognitive abilities. Could they have been justly destroyed while their brain was not emitting signals?
There are combinations of DNA that create children with no brain outside of the stem. Since it is a human life, should the mother be forced to carry it to term even though it will never acheive awareness and live outside the womb for a mere handful of days?
No, not really. Or at all.
But that does not make your grandmother less of a person. Your mother does not possess your grandmother's rights; she is merely their custodian. A person has the right as a self-owner to kill himself, but (self-defense aside) nobody has the right to kill another, even those in their custody. If mothers have the right to kill their unborn offspring, they must be said to own that which they are killing. Do you agree with the idea that a human life can be owned by another?
That would be moving the goal posts, sir. You stated the combination of DNA created something special and that it should be protected. Now we are adding cognition into the equation.That's a really good point, but I would say that the lack of capacity for the development of cognition is different from the lack of cognition.
That would be moving the goal posts, sir. You stated the combination of DNA created something special and that it should be protected. Now we are adding cognition into the equation.
I believe that human life is a good thing in and of itself, and that makes its needless ending wrong.
It is a qualitative, not quantitative standard.
No, it's not moving the goal posts; it's a minor concession. A being without the capacity to develop cognition is in a different moral class than one that has such a capacity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?