Pointless pro-choice statements

[vz71]

‘When a human forms, they’re a person.’ You want to define ‘person’ such that all humans are persons; that’s fine but don’t try to play it off like you’re not trying to define ‘person.’ As I’ve said above–and you’ve agreed–person is the applicable philosophical term and we can’t just not use it.

I see a war over vocabulary and what is actually being discussed is taking place.

I believe people are deliberately avoiding defining person in favor of the solid definition for human.

As far as I can tell, you are the only person that insists that “personhood” is what people are really saying.

 

[Prophesy]

The likelihood of his assistant being a match for all five unconscious persons aside, barring consent from the assistant, the five will die. As I said above, double effect applies; letting something happen as a side effect and bring it about as a primary cause are markedly different. That said, it would seem as though the assistant–assuming she was a match for the five–would be blessed for laying down her life to save the five strangers…

Remember, you said you weren’t looping this back to the abortion discussion and I’m getting a bit antsy.

One could assume that chloroform implies that consent isn’t being given, just as consent isn’t given by the individual in the trolley illustration.

People tend to shy aware from the direct option of causing one person to die in this case, while preferring to kill one in favour of the five in the trolley theory. What I am relating this to is a problem with hypothetical scenarios in terms of the framing of the situation.

Thank you for participating.

-Prophecy

 

[traillius]

The likelihood of his assistant being a match for all five unconscious persons aside, barring consent from the assistant, the five will die. As I said above, double effect applies; letting something happen as a side effect and bring it about as a primary cause are markedly different. That said, it would seem as though the assistant–assuming she was a match for the five–would be blessed for laying down her life to save the five strangers…

Remember, you said you weren’t looping this back to the abortion discussion and I’m getting a bit antsy.

The blessing you refer to only applies if the assistant willingly and with full knowledge did so.

 

[ThomasToo]

One could assume that chloroform implies that consent isn’t being given, just as consent isn’t given by the individual in the trolley illustration.

The person in the trolley situation is an unfortunate bystander. If she managed to free herself from the track before the trolley got there we’d all be pleased but if the assistant got free the five would die. This is why one of the major tenants of the principle of double effect is that the bad effect cannot be the means to the good (this is fulfilled in the trolley situation but not the transplant one).

People tend to shy aware from the direct option of causing one person to die in this case, while preferring to kill one in favour of the five in the trolley theory. What I am relating this to is a problem with hypothetical scenarios in terms of the framing of the situation.

A closer parallel may be found in a traditional variation of the trolley problem. Runaway trolley, five people bound to the tracks and a very fat man on an overpass above the tracks. If you push him off, his girth will stop the train even though the blow will kill him. Do you push him off to save the five?

Thank you for participating.

Welcome! I could talk about this stuff for hours.

 

[DOShea]

If the argument is going to be that personhood makes all the difference, and then we cannot define personhood with enough precision AND know it is correct, then this reduces the argument to the same scenario as the hunter who sees something moving in the bushes. It could be a deer, but it could be his hunting buddy.

What does reason dictate the hunter should do? Shoot, or hold his fire?

If it turns out he decided to shoot and it turned out it was his hunting buddy, any court would call that negligent homicide or manslaughter. Both civil and moral law would find fault with him shooting when he didn’t know if it was a person or not. Likewise, shoving the human argument over to one of personhood when the truth of personhood cannot be clearly demonstrated only means we should never kill in these cases because we don’t know for sure.

The law is not nebulous about personhood when a person kills a pregnant woman and the state tacks on an additional charge of manslaughter for taking the life of the baby. All of those cases presume personhood and apply the rights of a person to the baby. But the state is nebulous when that same pregnant woman - if not murdered - chose to abort that same child - and no foul here because it’s not a person. That means personhood is not something treated as truth, but only as arbitrary depending on circumstance and choice, which, by definition, cannot be used as the basis for any kind of morality. That puts you right back where you started… with the issue of human/not human.

 

[ThomasToo]

Honory Member!?!? Moral Community?!?! DO NOT POSSESS RIGHTS!?!?!

I hope I didn’t give you an aneurysm…

And you feel you are an authority of this? And how is that? You are so rightous that you can decide who is human enough to save and who is not human enough to get rid of?

I feel I am, at the risk of sounding pompous, trained to think about these sorts of issues intellectually at least from the ethical/philosophical side of things. I have a MA in (Catholic) Moral Theology, wrote my thesis on the nature of rights as such and have done extensive coursework in philosophy–mostly in ethics as well as some metaphysics–during my undergrad work. While you may not like my answers I’m not just making this up as I go but I am hardly an authority on these matters at least in I am not a Ph.D nor a professor in the field; three such individuals on questions of rights–not all of whom are on either of our sides–are Tom Regan, Carl Cohen and Peter Singer.

At any given moment you can have an accident, I pray that those who will have to speak for you will not have the screwed up view of human life that you seem to carry on others. I would hate to see you die of starvation or dehydaration cause some moron feels you do not posses the right to life.

I appreciate your concern but I, for one, would not want to live in a condition like that and would take a bullet in the bra(name removed by moderator)an over a feeding tube down my throat while a machine kept me “alive” any day. As I said above, even aside from questions of personhood and rights such medical care seems to me, extraordinary (in the technical sense) and therefore can be discontinued without moral issue.

 

[ThomasToo]

The blessing you refer to only applies if the assistant willingly and with full knowledge did so.

I don’t think many Catholics would consent to killing oneself even if five innocent individuals would be saved thereby. I don’t mean this to apply to a case like Maximilian Kolbe whose actions clearly seem to be blessed (not in the technical Blessed senes) but there seems to be a wobbly line here…

 

[JReducation]

You mean like Terry Schivo (sp?)? I think she–and those like her–, at the most, were honorary members of the moral community and do not possess rights by their nature.

Excuse me. My sister is in the same condition as Terry and I dare you to argue with me that she does not have human rights: water, food, medication, just for starters.

What moral community are we talking about here? There is no such a thing. There is morality. Human beings are all part of the human community and moral laws apply to them. Some moral laws bind them in justice to other people. Other moral laws dictate the obligations that others have to them.

A person who is dependent on others is still a member of the human community. His state of dependence does not nullify his rights. Such a thought is contrary to reason and natural law.

I challenge you to find a natural law that says that a dependent human being has no right to life and to be protected against a premature death.

As to the question regarding the patient on the table and the patients needing vital organs, the answer is a no brainer. The patient on the table cannot be sacrificed for the sake of the other five. The patient must willingly and consciouly give his/her life. It cannot be taken. We do not have the right to take what we do not own. That includes our lives as well.

Man is a social being. He has moral obligations to others. Therefore, he has a moral duty to fight for his life and to keep himself alive for the good of others, but not at their expense. The only time that a man can forfeit his life without moral impunity is when there is clear evidence that this is the greater good. But that choice must be made by the person who gives up his life. A good example of this is Maximilian Kolbe.

This scenario was played out by the Communists, Nazis, Greeks, Romans, slave owners and many African cultures and it has never born good fruit. The reason that is has not born good fruit is that it begins with a rotten seed, the very idea that the life of one person is less valuable than the life of another.

The value of life rests in human dignity, not in what it can produce or accomplish. The sick, disabled, elderly, and preborn can achieve very little, because of their condition. But human value is not measured by achievements. When we do this, we forge the first link in the chain of slavery.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ThomasToo]

If the argument is going to be that personhood makes all the difference, and then we cannot define personhood with enough precision AND know it is correct, then this reduces the argument to the same scenario as the hunter who sees something moving in the bushes. It could be a deer, but it could be his hunting buddy.

What does reason dictate the hunter should do? Shoot, or hold his fire?

If it turns out he decided to shoot and it turned out it was his hunting buddy, any court would call that negligent homicide or manslaughter. Both civil and moral law would find fault with him shooting when he didn’t know if it was a person or not. Likewise, shoving the human argument over to one of personhood when the truth of personhood cannot be clearly demonstrated only means we should never kill in these cases because we don’t know for sure.

This case has been discussed above at least to a degree.

The law is not nebulous about personhood when a person kills a pregnant woman and the state tacks on an additional charge of manslaughter for taking the life of the baby. All of those cases presume personhood and apply the rights of a person to the baby. But the state is nebulous when that same pregnant woman - if not murdered - chose to abort that same child - and no foul here because it’s not a person. That means personhood is not something treated as truth, but only as arbitrary depending on circumstance and choice, which, by definition, cannot be used as the basis for any kind of morality. That puts you right back where you started… with the issue of human/not human.

In cases where a person kills a pregnant woman or causes her to miscarry we are much more strict because that person is destroying the child she intends to bear. Due to her intention to carry the child to term it is provided (and I find myself using the same phrase twice in one day) honorary membership in the moral community in–and here I’m hesitant not for philosophical reasons but for the wrath I fear from y’all but I mean no disrespect–much the same way pets are.

 

[ThomasToo]

Excuse me. My sister is in the same condition as Terry and I dare you to argue with me that she does not have human rights: water, food, medication, just for starters.

I’m sorry about your sister and I will be very honest, for reasons of civility I’m hesitant to say more than that. When emotions and personal relationships are involved none of us tend to really be at our best academically and anyone who disagrees with us is, especially on matters with as much weight as these, a heartless ghoul trying to cut our loved ones’ hearts out and make of them a stew.

What moral community are we talking about here? There is no such a thing. There is morality. Human beings are all part of the human community and moral laws apply to them.

When men (and women, but I intend homo not vir) come together and–as you say–form a community part of what binds us is–again as you say–morality. We have political communities, social ones &c&c, one dimension of our social nature is the moral community. My use of the term mostly comes out of Tom Regan’s use of it to intend those beings which are of moral concern to us.

As to the question regarding the patient on the table and the patients needing vital organs, the answer is a no brainer. The patient on the table cannot be sacrificed for the sake of the other five. The patient must willingly and consciouly give his/her life. It cannot be taken. We do not have the right to take what we do not own. That includes our lives as well…
The only time that a man can forfeit his life without moral impunity is when there is clear evidence that this is the greater good. But that choice must be made by the person who gives up his life. A good example of this is Maximilian Kolbe.

I was pondering this (see above) so thanks for giving me a solid Catholic answer on the question–I presume.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You mean like Terry Schivo (sp?)? I think she–and those like her–, at the most, were honorary members of the moral community and do not possess rights by their nature.

Yes, but more than that. There are dogs as smart as three year olds. Say there’s a mentally handicapped person with the brain capacity of a two year old. You’d really put the smart dog morally over the handicapped person? Frankly if you answer yes to this, and I don’t know if you will or not, I find it rather horrible.

‘When a human forms, they’re a person.’ You want to define ‘person’ such that all humans are persons; that’s fine but don’t try to play it off like you’re not trying to define ‘person.’ As I’ve said above–and you’ve agreed–person is the applicable philosophical term and we can’t just not use it.

Yes, I AM arguing that all humans are persons. That is my stance, and I’ve been arguing it. No question.

But what I was trying to say is that whether this is true or not actually doesn’t matter right now. My point is that defining personhood is a slippery slope-it’s much safer and more logical to just ASSUME that all humans are human from conception.

The whole point of this argument is that it’s very dangerous to define a point in development for personhood, because we have no assurance of this.

 

[ThomasToo]

Yes, I AM arguing that all humans are persons. That is my stance, and I’ve been arguing it. No question.

But what I was trying to say is that whether this is true or not actually doesn’t matter right now. My point is that defining personhood is a slippery slope-it’s much safer and more logical to just ASSUME that all humans are human from conception.

The whole point of this argument is that it’s very dangerous to define a point in development for personhood, because we have no assurance of this.

Got it. Hardly seems intellectually rigorous to assume something of such gravity even if it is safer but I do understand where you’re coming from on this question.

Regarding the dogs, if by ‘handicapped’ you mean–to be blunt–retarded then I would grant rights to the human far more readily than to the dog though admittedly–and I think on this you would agree–that they do not possess all human rights (e.g. the right to vote).

 

[SophieCharlotte]

I did. My answer is reproduced below:

If pressed I would say that a fetus becomes a person in the moral sense with the emergence of human like brainwaves as well as uniquely human neurological structures. Decry me as a crass materialist if you wish but it’s not our fingers, our faces or our gonads that make us unique as a species but our brains. Brainwaves with patterns typical of (healthy) adult human brains appear some time around the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy. I don’t think it is meaningful–or for that matter intelligible–to attempt to class a zygote (pic: raven.zoology.washington.edu/embryos/auximages/dendraster_zygote4.jpg) as a moral person. Your argument above, aside from intended pathos in unnecessary descriptions of abortive procedures, is telling. It seems very important to you that the entity in question look human (or maybe you think it is or should be to me) so then I put the question to you, does that one single cell truly bear the weight of the full portion of freedom (and this isn’t an attempt to trap you into some nonsense like votes for zygotes)?

Wow. Am I the only one who is impressed with ThomasToo’s outstanding ability to write? My God. You have an amazing gift for words, my friend! That was really pleasing to read.

 

[JReducation]

Wow. Am I the only one who is impressed with ThomasToo’s outstanding ability to write? My God. You have an amazing gift for words, my friend! That was really pleasing to read.

If one is pleased with writing skills, then one would be pleased with this too.

I for one admire good writing skills. But good writing skills do not reflect good moral judgment. In addition, there is a flaw in this judgment. The central nervous system begins to develop from the moment of conception. But it is not the CNS that makes us sons and daughters of God. It is human life. Even a person who is brain dead remains a son of the Eternal Father.

From a purely humanistic perspective, society owes its protection to the vulnerable. A preborn child is very vulnerable and we have a moral duty to protect him. It is very easy to pretend to be academic and rational, while the whole time we’re proposing barbarism. We may not even realize that we’re doing it, because our words sound logical and intelligent. But the denial of human rights is just that, barbarism.

One can either go with the flow and accept what sounds good or stop and take note that it is a far better risk to take to protect human life, regardless of its stage of human development or its condition after birth. To err on the side of human dignity is a virtue. To err on the side of speculation is irresponsible.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cinette]

Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!

How shallow! Just because it rimes??

 

[Prophesy]

The person in the trolley situation is an unfortunate bystander. If she managed to free herself from the track before the trolley got there we’d all be pleased but if the assistant got free the five would die. This is why one of the major tenants of the principle of double effect is that the bad effect cannot be the means to the good (this is fulfilled in the trolley situation but not the transplant one).

A closer parallel may be found in a traditional variation of the trolley problem. Runaway trolley, five people bound to the tracks and a very fat man on an overpass above the tracks. If you push him off, his girth will stop the train even though the blow will kill him. Do you push him off to save the five?

Welcome! I could talk about this stuff for hours.

The point is to have very similar scenarios though not fully identical so as to encourage further discussion about the actual morality of murdering (non-consent) a person to save the lives of others. It’s things like this which can facilitate philosophical thought within lay-people.

-Prophecy

 

[vz71]

Got it. Hardly seems intellectually rigorous to assume something of such gravity even if it is safer but I do understand where you’re coming from on this question.

It is intellectually rigorous to reason out a wrong answer from a correct one.

I have noticed this a number of times, and I am growing more insulted with it as time goes on.

Each and every time someone comes up with the correct answer (that personhood is a fallacy) you fall back upon this “intellectually rigorous” statement that would appear to be a backhanded manner of saying that somone is not thinking.

I can assure you plenty of thought has gone into the answer.
You may not like the answer, but it is correct anyway.

 

[vz71]

Honory Member!?!? Moral Community?!?! DO NOT POSSESS RIGHTS!?!?!

And you feel you are an authority of this? And how is that? You are so rightous that you can decide who is human enough to save and who is not human enough to get rid of?

I hope I didn’t give you an aneurysm…
I feel I am, at the risk of sounding pompous, trained to think about these sorts of issues intellectually at least from the ethical/philosophical side of things.

There were a number of Germans around the 1930’s that felt the same way.
You sure you want to keep that sort of company?

 

[vz71]

Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!

How shallow! Just because it rimes??

Well, that is what it i all about…the rhyme, not the logic.

Like any good advertising campaign, the point is to place the thought in your head, not win you over with logic.

 

[colmcille1]

It is intellectually rigorous to reason out a wrong answer from a correct one.

I have noticed this a number of times, and I am growing more insulted with it as time goes on.

Each and every time someone comes up with the correct answer (that personhood is a fallacy) you fall back upon this “intellectually rigorous” statement that would appear to be a backhanded manner of saying that somone is not thinking.

I can assure you plenty of thought has gone into the answer.
You may not like the answer, but it is correct anyway.

Hi vz71,
I agree entirely!
May I just make a general observation re the forums?
I detect a method of argument along the line s you have so brilliantly pointed out.
I have seen Catholics “accused” of “hiding” behind scripture.
I have seen non-believers openly say things like “I don’t know about that but…”; “…it doesen’t concern me…”; and any number of variations on this theme as if such banalities were in themselves half-decent responses.
And of course, I have seen said non-believers evade questions when things get a bit too tough for them.
Granted, there are non-believers whom I respect because there is some sort of acknowledgement of the possibility of a meeting of minds.
Anyway, we strive onwards and upwards!
Thanks for your excellent post.
Keep the Faith.
Colmcille1.