Barack Obama addressing Christians

[Luis_Santiago]

Why make the point? The crimes were punished in a similar fashion. So to be correct we should say abortion is a *form *of murder, just as is manslaughter.

Early-term abortion was often not punished at all, and the Church didn’t establish biological conception as the point at which personhood begins until the 19th century.

OK. You can either accept a 1300 page 2000 case analysis by a PhD and other sources from Right to Life, or Wikipedia and Justice Blackmun as you wish. I would say your version of history is counterintuitive to say the least. As to quickening (the time at which child moves), for example, the point is that prior to it, absent medical knowledge and technology, there are no signs of live pregnancy. Since spontaneous abortion is not the issue, but induced abortion, it was at the point of quickening that abortion became an issue. Likewise, available abortifacients were likely to kill the mother. Finally, when they did work, they were punished as capital crimes (just like murder, I’d say). But again, as you wish.

Obviously, I didn’t read the 1300-page book, and I’m fairly certain you didn’t either.

So you are saying that before the child moves, they didn’t believe it was alive? St. Augustine had an in-depth understanding of the stages of pregnancy over a thousand years ago, so claiming our forebears were ignorant on the matter can’t be right.

I would say yes, anyone can understand the need to preserve life as a first right. That people do not agree speaks to the evil of people, not to a problem with communication.

Perhaps Americans can all agree that every person has a right to life, but the point there is disagreement on is what constitutes a person.

Here you are clearly in error (the due process and equal protection clause of the first amendment applies to all persons), but you have found the subsequent problem to abortion. If we do not know when life begins, we also do not know when it ends. Along the way, we forget what the Constitution guarantees. And next we confuse life with ability. At that point no one’s life is protected. Hold on. We are almost there, so you may be a little ahead of your time.

A person who is brain dead has a brain that is too damaged to ever function, and thus they cannot ever be conscious again. I’m not talking about cases like Terry Schivo, who had a minimally-functional brain, I’m talking about people with no functional brain at all. They are usually only kept alive to keep their organs functioning for transplantation. As far as I’m aware, no one has a problem with this.

Solid and logically sound arguments can be made against abortion based solely on medical science and the constitution.

Agreed. This is certainly true for late-term abortions, but perhaps more difficult for embryonic stem cells.

No, Obama is not evil. Misguided on the abortion issue? Yes. Evil? No. We are a nation who’s constitution and governmental system is designed to be inclusive of all religions, therefore, our laws must be based on the constitution, not religion.

Yes, Obama is a Christian, and I do believe he wants to do the right thing. Indeed, in his personal life and on most issues besides abortion he does appear to be doing the right thing. But in the speech, he does say that even though religion often allows no compromise, when it comes to public policy, compromise is necessary. I think he may be open to specific changes, like restricting late-term abortions, but I don’t think he will ever be open to eliminating abortion entirely.

 

[Newbie2]

Solid and logically sound arguments can be made against abortion based solely on medical science and the constitution.

No, Obama is not evil. Misguided on the abortion issue? Yes. Evil? No. We are a nation who’s constitution and governmental system is designed to be inclusive of all religions, therefore, our laws must be based on the constitution, not religion.

Beg to differ.

Have you read the constitution on religion? It only says (in so many words) that we are to have free exercise of religion and that the government shall not mandate or force any particular religion on it’s citizenry…so…laws can be based on religion, as long as they square with the constitution. A little different way to look at it, methinks.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Beg to differ.

Have you read the constitution on religion? It only says (in so many words) that we are to have free exercise of religion and that the government shall not mandate or force any particular religion on it’s citizenry…so…laws can be based on religion, as long as they square with the constitution. A little different way to look at it, methinks.

And laws often are based on religious beliefs. But Obama’s point is that to argue that the law should be changed, you can’t use religious arguments.

Besides, the supreme court has ruled that there is the famous “separation of church and state”. Supreme court decisions are binding and part of our law. It is their job to interpret what the constitution means, according to the constitution itself.

 

[Biggie]

Perhaps Americans can all agree that every person has a right to life, but the point there is disagreement on is what constitutes a person.

A person who is brain dead has a brain that is too damaged to ever function, and thus they cannot ever be conscious again. I’m not talking about cases like Terry Schivo, who had a minimally-functional brain, I’m talking about people with no functional brain at all. They are usually only kept alive to keep their organs functioning for transplantation. As far as I’m aware, no one has a problem with this.

The rest of your response is circular. From it it is clear you did not read the review and summary of the 1300 page book as you indicated you did, and so one must conclude you are not open to addressing evidence to the contrary of your original blanket statement which was a gross and inaccurate reduction of the truth. And, as the review begins, “Truth does matter.”

There is no doubt Rowe and Doe have given rise to a “disagreement” about what constitutes personhood. That was precisely my point. The result is the kind of fuzzy logic exhibited in your last paragraph above.

If a person is dead, a life to be protected no longer exists. If a person is alive, the due process equal protection clause applies, which would prevent the state from sanctioning direct killing action which would include deprivation of food and water.

You are talking about Terry Schiavo, because it was exactly on the justification you cited that she was put to death, so you can’t distance your argument from the case. If personhood is based upon one’s ability to talk or walk or perform some other task, rather than upon the quality of an existing life, we are all in trouble, as I think we are. That is the point.

 

[Biggie]

So you are saying that before the child moves, they didn’t believe it was alive? St. Augustine had an in-depth understanding of the stages of pregnancy over a thousand years ago, so claiming our forebears were ignorant on the matter can’t be right.

Allow me to address this one point, though circular, since it’s obvious you are not getting the argument.

In 350 AD, the time of St. Augustine, one may know “the stages of pregnancy”, that pregnancy begins from a “seed” and progresses to a live birth, but one has certainly never seen a zygote or seen a sonogram or seen a live first trimester child. There was no detailed understanding of the cell. There was no germ theory. There was no effective surgery. There were no statistics, no microscopes, no X-rays.

The state of medicine being what it was, infant mortality being what it was, a person living at the time would have no understanding of cell division, of the exact trajectory of pregnancy, of gauging how many live births there were vs. impregnations.

There was no means of proving a child was alive prior to its moving (quickening). To abort a stillborn child could not be an offense, nor could spontaneous abortion (i.e. a woman shows signs of pregnancy, and yet two months later her cycle returns. Was she pregnant? Mary Tudor, for example, showed signs of pregnancy and took to bed causing celebrations all over 16th century England. Many months later her cycle returned, causing anger all over 16th century England. Had she been pregnant? No way to tell.)

From a moral perspective under those circumstances, St. Augustine’s observation would be that in the abundance of nature, overwhelmingly many seeds are strewn upon the ground as opposed to those that actually take root. A seed lying upon the ground is distinct from a plant. In the same way, God has strewn the seeds of humanity. Those that take root are those that show a sign of life. He had no means of comprehending more detail prior to that point.

 

[allhers]

Then I guess I don’t know what your point is. What is it?

I thought my point was quite clear, here, I’ll re-post it for you.

In this day and age we know better-a preborn child is definately ALIVE. When the sperm and the egg meet, that is LIFE.

Now, about YOUR earlier comments, which seem to suggest that the Church wasn’t clear either, how about these words from the Bible? (When did the Church write that down? How long ago did they believe this?)

“the **infant in my womb **leaped for joy” You do recognize that, right?

Why is anyone in their right mind trying to suggest that a preborn child, an infant in the womb, is not a person? What part don’t they understand?

The moment of conception is when a human life begins, science understands this.
When the sperm and the egg meet, its pretty simple really and it doesn’t take a genius to figure it out, even my little grandchildren can look at a picture of an ultrasound and see a BABY. They say “Look, grandma, thats a baby!”

Even an abortion Doctor knows it is a person.

Years ago I use to see a bumper sticker quite often that read:
IF IT ISN’T A BABY, YOU’RE NOT PREGNANT

So, if a person isn’t going to give birth to a person, what are they having an abortion for?

 

[Newbie2]

And laws often are based on religious beliefs. But Obama’s point is that to argue that the law should be changed, you can’t use religious arguments.

So he believes that a law can be ***made ***based on religious beliefs, but cannot be changed based on religious beliefs?

Ridiculous. There is no difference between making a law and changing a law, in its effect on the populace. Besides, some laws effects are changed by introducing a new law.

 

[allhers]

St. Augustine also said that an unjust law is no law at all.
He said that laws needed to be rooted in eternal law and natural law.
He also said that we have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

So he believes that a law can be ***made ***based on religious beliefs, but cannot be changed based on religious beliefs?

Ridiculous. There is no difference between making a law and changing a law, in its effect on the populace. Besides, some laws effects are changed by introducing a new law.

Ok, I may not have been clear on this. There are laws that are based on religious arguments, but these laws are generally supported among the population, and there is little pressure to change them. Laws against prostitution are one example. However, if there is widespread disagreement on whether a law should exist or not, as is the case with abortion, then both sides need to use arguments that are not grounded in any particular faith.

I thought my point was quite clear, here, I’ll re-post it for you.

In this day and age we know better-a preborn child is definately ALIVE. When the sperm and the egg meet, that is LIFE.

Now, about YOUR earlier comments, which seem to suggest that the Church wasn’t clear either, how about these words from the Bible? (When did the Church write that down? How long ago did they believe this?)

“the **infant in my womb **leaped for joy” You do recognize that, right?

An embryo is alive. No one would argue that. But the question is, at what point is it a person? The science doesn’t seem to indicate that it becomes a person immediately at the moment of conception. After all, the zygote or blastula can split and become several people, or combine with another one to eventually form a single person. HOWEVER, the science also indicates that a fetus in the last few months of pregnancy could certainly be considered a person, just as a premature infant is a person.

Why is anyone in their right mind trying to suggest that a preborn child, an infant in the womb, is not a person? What part don’t they understand?

First, I think you need to understand that there is a widespread view that personhood comes at some time BETWEEN biological conception and birth. The trouble is, there is no instant within those nine months where you can say, this is a person now, and that makes a lot of people uncomfortable so they pick either birth or conception as the point where personhood begins.

The rest of your response is circular. From it it is clear you did not read the review and summary of the 1300 page book as you indicated you did, and so one must conclude you are not open to addressing evidence to the contrary of your original blanket statement which was a gross and inaccurate reduction of the truth. And, as the review begins, “Truth does matter.”

I read the summary, just not the 1300-page book.

There is no doubt Rowe and Doe have given rise to a “disagreement” about what constitutes personhood. That was precisely my point. The result is the kind of fuzzy logic exhibited in your last paragraph above.

If a person is dead, a life to be protected no longer exists. If a person is alive, the due process equal protection clause applies, which would prevent the state from sanctioning direct killing action which would include deprivation of food and water.

You are talking about Terry Schiavo, because it was exactly on the justification you cited that she was put to death, so you can’t distance your argument from the case. If personhood is based upon one’s ability to talk or walk or perform some other task, rather than upon the quality of an existing life, we are all in trouble, as I think we are. That is the point.

In her case, it was based on the fact that her entire brain, except for the part that controlled automatic functions, was gone. She no longer had the ability to think and reason, and was no longer self-aware. These are all things that define what constitutes a person, at least in the eyes of most people. So yes, the argument can be made that personhood is based on the ability to be conscious and self-aware. This is not hard to determine, and people should always given the benefit of the doubt, so I’m not sure why you think that means we’re all in trouble.

 

[mbgumby28]

When sperm and egg chemically combine, a new “being” is formed with 46 chromosomes. A living thing with 46 chromosomes is more commonly known as a human being. The fetus, from the moment of conception, is a living human being. It’s not rocket science.

 

[Mark77]

These feeble arguments about “early stages and previous civilizations” are irrelevant!

The Church has always taught that abortion is always a grave evil and is always wrong!

"**Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
**
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish. (Didache 1st century teaching)

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. (CCC 2271)

Debates by Theologians on abortion are not Church teaching, even Aquinas or Augustine’s writings are not official Church teachings.

Many evil things have been legal in this country, slavery is just one example. Because it was legal does not make it right!

Because previous laws did not specifically identify early term abortion as murder, does not invalidate the Truth that science has now confirmed beyond any doubt!

The fact is that at the moment of conception the zygote has complete and unique Human DNA, all 3 billion characters. Unlike any other cells, sperm or egg or lung…, the zygote will grow and become a living human being!

Let’s stop murdering innocent babies, then we can focus on helping the needy among us!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

 

[Biggie]

Luis, you seem to be sincere in your effort to find a comfortable moral and rational compromise between post-Rowe democracy and morality. I think, therefore, you deserve concise responses, not one of my strengths.

Ok, I may not have been clear on this. There are laws that are based on religious arguments, but these laws are generally supported among the population, and there is little pressure to change them. Laws against prostitution are one example. However, if there is widespread disagreement on whether a law should exist or not, as is the case with abortion, then both sides need to use arguments that are not grounded in any particular faith.

Your contention that laws such as abortion or prostitution are based on religious arguments is not true. They are based on rational arguments. That religion agrees with the reasoning should be no surprise since religion’s aim is also reason’s proper aim, truth. That religion agrees does not make the rationality of the laws religious. Neither does it follow that if religion opposes a law, the opposition is necessarily therefore based on religion. Reason is a faculty accessible to all human beings, religious and irreligious.

An embryo is alive. No one would argue that. But the question is, at what point is it a person? The science doesn’t seem to indicate that it becomes a person immediately at the moment of conception. After all, the zygote or blastula can split and become several people, or combine with another one to eventually form a single person. HOWEVER, the science also indicates that a fetus in the last few months of pregnancy could certainly be considered a person, just as a premature infant is a person.

By your view, then, we each have a body and “person” distinct from that body. The body senses and perceives; the person possesses awareness and conceptual thinking. Even though it is the same subject who does both these things, he is not his body. Is that a rational argument?

By your view, one cannot hold that “all persons are created equal”. What is the minimum level of mental functioning necessary to define personhood and who decides it? Why would one with greater levels of that mental functioning, then, not have more rights than people with less of it?

As to twinning, abundance cannot be used to prove a negative. That more than one life accrued from a single fertilization does not prove that no life existed.

And if you are taking consolation in the personhood you seem to find in the last two trimesters of pregnancy, it is not a consolation Rowe enjoys. Under Rowe / Doe, abortion is legal at any point in pregnancy. So even under the Luis regimen for determining life, Rowe would be offensive.

First, I think you need to understand that there is a widespread view that personhood comes at some time BETWEEN biological conception and birth. The trouble is, there is no instant within those nine months where you can say, this is a person now, and that makes a lot of people uncomfortable so they pick either birth or conception as the point where personhood begins.

Again I think you identify a problem then draw the wrong conclusions from it. The problem is with people picking an arbitrary time at which personhood accrues, apart from at the origins of a distinct human life. This became a problem exactly because of Blackmun’s decision in Rowe. Blackmun, as you know, did not rule on the beginnings of life per se. His argument, like yours, was that a life not worthy of protection exists - and in his logic, does not exist until birth.

In her case, it was based on the fact that her entire brain, except for the part that controlled automatic functions, was gone. She no longer had the ability to think and reason, and was no longer self-aware. These are all things that define what constitutes a person, at least in the eyes of most people. So yes, the argument can be made that personhood is based on the ability to be conscious and self-aware. This is not hard to determine, and people should always given the benefit of the doubt, so I’m not sure why you think that means we’re all in trouble

The world has walked this road before and sadly we have not remembered it’s outcome. Do your ideas not even sound a little to you like “lebens unwertes Leben” (life unworthy of life), the program by which the killing of the mentally and physically disabled was promoted by doctors and scientists. This was the very phrase that began the march to 11 million deaths in Germany. Or perhaps Dred Scott, the Supreme Court decision that a slave is not a person but property, might be a more familiar example of the outcome of not viewing human life as an end in itself, therefore supremely worthy of dignity and protection. Then as now the abomination begins with arbitrary and irrational definitions of human life and with the dualism of life and personhood.

 

[allhers]

An embryo is alive. No one would argue that. But the question is, at what point is it a person? The science doesn’t seem to indicate that it becomes a person immediately at the moment of conception. After all, the zygote or blastula can split and become several people, or combine with another one to eventually form a single person. HOWEVER, the science also indicates that a fetus in the last few months of pregnancy could certainly be considered a person, just as a premature infant is a person.

First, I think you need to understand that there is a widespread view that personhood comes at some time BETWEEN biological conception and birth. The trouble is, there is no instant within those nine months where you can say, this is a person now, and that makes a lot of people uncomfortable so they pick either birth or conception as the point where personhood begins.

…and I think you need to understand that you answered your own question here. (I bolded it for you.)

I also think you need to understand that view about personhood is spread by the culture of death, because the Church has always taught that LIFE begins at conception (as others have pointed out to you in there above posts) and they have also shown you what science says about it being a PERSON.

So, perhaps people need to educate themselves on the facts and the truth and then they can stop being so uncomfortable and stop murdering innocent LIFE and acting like it is alright because afterall, they just don’t understand.

 

[a_priori]

An egg or a sperm individually are definitely ALIVE. The debate is about personhood. Is a single-celled zygote a human person? Is a blastocyst consisting of 200-300 cells a human person?

These cellular structures have value because they result in a human being. Ironically, you could face a $100,000 fine or a year in jail for harming an eagle egg because if you leave it alone a bald eagle results. The government will do all it can to help you destroy a human zygote if you don’t want it but will fine you for destroying an eagle egg. Therefore the eagle egg has more value? Apparently. This is delusional.

 

[Biggie]

An egg or a sperm individually are definitely ALIVE. The debate is about personhood. Is a single-celled zygote a human person? Is a blastocyst consisting of 200-300 cells a human person?

So it is that a zygote is a collection of cells that denies it personhood? And what is the adult organism other than a collection of cells?

Or is it the number of cells that determines personhood? What, then, is an appropriate number of cells and why?

 

[Luis_Santiago]

When sperm and egg chemically combine, a new “being” is formed with 46 chromosomes. A living thing with 46 chromosomes is more commonly known as a human being. The fetus, from the moment of conception, is a living human being.

Rabbits also have 46 chromosomes. Just saying. Anyway, after the zygote divides and becomes eight cells, each of those eight cells has the potential to become a human being. So is an 8-celled zygote actually eight people? My point is that it’s not that simple.

The Church has always taught that abortion is always a grave evil and is always wrong!

Perhaps. I know abortion is wrong and I’m not trying to say there is nothing wrong with it. And I know the Church has always taught that abortion is wrong. But the Church has NOT always taught that abortion is murder.

The fact is that at the moment of conception the zygote has complete and unique Human DNA, all 3 billion characters. Unlike any other cells, sperm or egg or lung…, the zygote will grow and become a living human being!

I’m not sure how to explain this without sounding like I’m not taking this seriously, but I’ll try. I know this isn’t the best analogy, but it’s all I have until I think of a better one, so bear with me. Your DNA is a set of instructions, like a recipe. It tells the first cell of a zygote how to build a person. The rest of the cell is like the ingredients for the recipe. It divides and absorbs nutrients, and shapes itself into a blastula, then an embryo, then a fetus, then an infant. But at the beginning, it’s still ingredients and a recipe, not a person quite yet. If it were changed just a little, it could become a monkey or something.

Luis, you seem to be sincere in your effort to find a comfortable moral and rational compromise between post-Rowe democracy and morality. I think, therefore, you deserve concise responses, not one of my strengths.

Thanks. I guess part of what I’m trying to do is figure out if there are arguments against all types of abortion that don’t rely primarily on Church teaching. I don’t necessarily agree with all my arguments, but then I don’t know how to adequately disprove them either.

That religion agrees with the reasoning should be no surprise since religion’s aim is also reason’s proper aim, truth. That religion agrees does not make the rationality of the laws religious. Neither does it follow that if religion opposes a law, the opposition is necessarily therefore based on religion. Reason is a faculty accessible to all human beings, religious and irreligious.

Yes, I guess my point was that there are laws grounded in human nature and laws grounded in reason. For instance, laws against indecent exposure are grounded in human nature. That’s not really evil and doesn’t actually hurt anyone, but most people agree it should be illegal, so it is. Laws controlling, say, corporate taxes, are grounded in reasoning of some sort. But with abortion, it is extremely offensive to some people, and only slightly offensive to others. Reason too, can go either way. Hence the problem, and the reason there is no great legal solution to this problem.

By your view, then, we each have a body and “person” distinct from that body. The body senses and perceives; the person possesses awareness and conceptual thinking. Even though it is the same subject who does both these things, he is not his body. Is that a rational argument?

It’s not just my opinion, even the Church says there is a difference between body and soul, and indeed most people and religions note the distinction between the body, which carries us around, and the person who occupies the body. With a zygote, there may be some vestiges of a body, but it clearly does not think or feel or have any form of consciousness. Thus, some people would deny that it’s a person.

By your view, one cannot hold that “all persons are created equal”. What is the minimum level of mental functioning necessary to define personhood and who decides it? Why would one with greater levels of that mental functioning, then, not have more rights than people with less of it?

Well, not all people are created equal in terms of their abilities. That’s obvious. But all people should be treated equally under the law. And with our current law, people with lower levels of mental functioning actually have more rights, since less is expected of them and more is given to them. Neurologists are better able to tell if a person is able to think or not, and are the ones to determine when a person is brain dead. But they typically give them the benefit of the doubt.

As to twinning, abundance cannot be used to prove a negative. That more than one life accrued from a single fertilization does not prove that no life existed.

I never did and never would argue that a zygote is not alive. It obviously is. My point is that there is no instant where each twin’s life can be said to have begun.

And if you are taking consolation in the personhood you seem to find in the last two trimesters of pregnancy, it is not a consolation Rowe enjoys. Under Rowe / Doe, abortion is legal at any point in pregnancy. So even under the Luis regimen for determining life, Rowe would be offensive.

I am offended by late-term abortions. If they can live outside of the mother, there is no reason they should ever be aborted. That is why I get upset when people keep trying to characterize me as supporting it. I’ve just stopped responding to them now, because there are too many. But Roe v. Wade actually does prohibit late-term abortions except in the case of where it risks the life or health of the mother. The problem is that some doctors take a liberal interpretation of “health”. And I agree with you that this is a problem.

The decision actually divided a pregnancy into trimesters and assigned different protections to each one. I actually read the whole thing once for a class. It tries to be a compromise although most people don’t see it that way.

Do your ideas not even sound a little to you like “lebens unwertes Leben”, the program by which the killing of the mentally and physically disabled was promoted by doctors and scientists. Or perhaps Dred Scott, the Supreme Court decision that a slave is not a person but property, might be a more familiar example of the outcome of not viewing human life as an end in itself, therefore supremely worthy of dignity and protection. Then as now the abomination begins with arbitrary and irrational definitions of human life and with the dualism of life and personhood.

It makes sense that to be a person requires the capacity for consciousness and self-awareness. In all of these cases, people were given status as non-persons despite having consciousness and self-awareness.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

So it is that a zygote is a collection of cells that denies it personhood? And what is the adult organism other than a collection of cells?

Or is it the number of cells that determines personhood? What, then, is an appropriate number of cells and why?

A functioning brain is critical to being considered a person. Imagine for a second that brain transplants were medically possible, and the brain of a paralyzed person was transplanted into the body of a person who had been shot in the head and was brain dead. Which person would this be?

 

[judechild]

A functioning brain is critical to being considered a person. Imagine for a second that brain transplants were medically possible, and the brain of a paralyzed person was transplanted into the body of a person who had been shot in the head and was brain dead. Which person would this be?

I suppose we can cross that bridge not just when we come to it, but when it’s built. I don’t think that will ever even **be **medically possible, so right now I don’t think it’s an avenue that needs exploration. I will say, though, that the soul and the mind are two different things; the soul is not in the brain, the brain is only a tool. Personhood does not depend on the brain.

On another note, there have been people who have had an entire hemisphere of their brain removed; they have a harder time, but this does not make them half human.

I’m sure that’s unsatisfactory, but it’s the best I can do right now.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

I suppose we can cross that bridge not just when we come to it, but when it’s built. I don’t think that will ever even **be **medically possible, so right now I don’t think it’s an avenue that needs exploration. I will say, though, that the soul and the mind are two different things; the soul is not in the brain, the brain is only a tool. Personhood does not depend on the brain.

On another note, there have been people who have had an entire hemisphere of their brain removed; they have a harder time, but this does not make them half human.

I’m sure that’s unsatisfactory, but it’s the best I can do right now.

My point was that it is our brain that determines who we are as a person, and indeed a person with a nonfunctioning brain is considered medically dead. And having half a brain doesn’t make you any less of a person than being short or missing a limb does.

 

[Biggie]

A functioning brain is critical to being considered a person. Imagine for a second that brain transplants were medically possible, and the brain of a paralyzed person was transplanted into the body of a person who had been shot in the head and was brain dead. Which person would this be?

That problem originates in your philosophical construct, not mine, so you must answer that. You must explain what a “functioning brain” means. Are you referring to the ability to think? And then think in what quality of thought? Or are you referring to the brain’s interaction with the nervous system, in which case you must explain where the line is in the medula, spinal cord or where in the nervous system?

But I for one do not agree that a “functioning brain” in the way you are using the term is “critical to being considered a person”. I am putting forth that human life is critical to being considered a person, and that anything short of that is, in fact, an irrational, inhumane and immoral viewpoint.