 |
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
Whaleboy:
quote:
There is a difference between a living human lifeform, a human being and a human person.
|
Just like black people were once three-fifths of a person, or Jews were not persons under the Reich, eh?
quote:
A being is a being to others, traditionally that would rest upon the ability to communicate, though some might say the ability to be perceived and thus qualities of being ascribed by others upon one - sentience.
|
Consider this. I am almost deaf, but fortunately, I have the ability to converse fluently in English. Suppose I were not so fortunate, and I was unable to communicate with you in any meaningful manner, other than through sign language.
Now, who is the person? Am I no longer a person because I cannot converse with you, or are you no longer a person because you cannot converse with me?
In short, the ability to communicate has nothing to do with whether we consider someone to be a person or not.
quote:
A "person" is not dependent upon biology, it is someone with a consciousness that they know, a being unto oneself in the existential sense. The definition is an extention of Descartes famous "Cogito ergo Sum".
|
So what about someone in a coma? Are they no longer a person because they lack current conscious thought?
And how do you know that the unborn in the womb doesn't think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
BK: You'll note how I am not giving my opinion, just a particular framework to a reasoned opinion one way or the other. On the actual issue, I'm mostly ambivalent, defaulting to pro-abortion considering that I'm not a woman, I don't know what it's like to be a woman and I'm not inclined to impose upon it, but I digress.
quote:
Just like black people were once three-fifths of a person, or Jews were not persons under the Reich, eh?
|
Strawman. The question of "person" remains constant accordingly, no-one would have denied that they were persons under my definition. I do not use it to mean autonomous in action, or equal in status.
quote:
Consider this. I am almost deaf, but fortunately, I have the ability to converse fluently in English. Suppose I were not so fortunate, and I was unable to communicate with you in any meaningful manner, other than through sign language.
Now, who is the person? Am I no longer a person because I cannot converse with you, or are you no longer a person because you cannot converse with me?
|
A good question. I would consider that you would see me as conscious, and I see you as conscious. Communication is so much more than language. In your example, sight and body language would equate, in any example, simply moving autonomously, being more than a peace of lifeless meat, is communication (you'll note how communication is a two way *interpretative* process).
In this case, you could argue that communication with a foetus occurs when it does something other than move to sustain itself, like a biological machine/lifeform... for example, when it kicks. A possible cut off point for abortion, having been allowed before hand? Perhaps, that would rest on other positions within my framework, itself that is an unloaded statement as per the conclusion.
quote:
In short, the ability to communicate has nothing to do with whether we consider someone to be a person or not.
|
You misunderstand. Being and person are different. To be, you have sentience *ascribed* by virtue of your communication. Person is what a religious person might call a "soul", or someone else would call a subjective consciousness.
quote:
So what about someone in a coma? Are they no longer a person because they lack current conscious thought?
|
If you can show that they lack conscious thought, that they are essentially brain dead, then yes they are not a person. They are only a being because that status was previously ascribed to them when they were demonstrating sentience, now they logically are not, though emotionally to the relatives obviously they still are because they love the comatose patient. Indeed, if they are brain dead, on ventilators / heart-lung machines etc et c etc, then they are not being, they are a human lifeform.
quote:
And how do you know that the unborn in the womb doesn't think?
|
You don't. But then, how do you know that anyone but yourself thinks? You have to make that assumption upon the basis of the demonstration of sentience, alternatively a mothers love for her child. If you think an unborn child thinks and is conscious at any given point, then at that point you would not abort it lest it be murder. The question is to the definition of that point?
Day 0, week 12, week 24? The question remains open, I'm half-tempted to say that it should be the mothers decision as to when she thinks it is, but I need to think that through, don't consider that a debatable position yet, I need to work on it before presenting it. Just an example of how this argument isn't clear cut.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Argument from lesser to greater. If guns, which have purposes other than killing another person, should be less restricted than a pill with no other purpose. |
What purpose does a gun have other than to kill?
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Who is 'using' the medication? Isn't the person who uses the medication the person who suffers the effects of the medication? |
No. If my mother takes hormone drugs, and thus starts being curt and rude to me, I still haven't used her medication. The person who uses it is the person who takes it. That's what using a drug means.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As for it being the job of the pharmacist to dispense these drugs, are pharmacists professionals allowed to exercise reasonable judgement, or all they pill pushers? |
If there is a prescription, they're just pill pushers, as the doctor decides.. If not, it depends on the law. IMHO, they're pill pushers plus advice. They can advise, but if it's over the counter, they can't refuse to sell, like someone in a shop can't refuse to sell a good they stock and have priced up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
(you'll note how communication is a two way *interpretative* process).
|
And that's one of my points that I would have had to bring up. If we are going to determine whether someone ought to live, or die, the standard should be something not subject to interpretation.
quote:
In this case, you could argue that communication with a foetus occurs when it does something other than move to sustain itself, like a biological machine/lifeform... for example, when it kicks.
|
The unborn child has many forms of communication with the mother. One could even argue that the mother does not know she is pregnant, unless her child interacts with her body in such a way that it becomes apparent.
There are many biological processes that the embryo initiates that affect the mother, of which any of these could constitute communication.
quote:
If you can show that they lack conscious thought, that they are essentially brain dead, then yes they are not a person.
|
Stop there. I did not say brain dead. I said merely lacking conscious thought, since that was not your standard. If you are changing your standard to detectable brain activity, then you should do so throughout, rather than referring to conscious thought.
I agree, that in the case of irreverseable brain death, that the person should no longer be considered a person, but the key point being irreverseable. The unborn child is not analogous since she temporarily lacks brain activity in the earliest stages of development. One anticipates the brain activity to emerge later on, which is different from the person with irreverseable brain death.
quote:
They are only a being because that status was previously ascribed to them when they were demonstrating sentience,
|
No, if that were so, then no life would ever terminate because they would always have a previous state of sentience. They are a being because they retain a capacity to function as a person, something also possessed by the unborn child.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
What purpose does a gun have other than to kill?
|
A gun can be used to hunt animals, hence my point about persons.
quote:
No. If my mother takes hormone drugs, and thus starts being curt and rude to me, I still haven't used her medication. The person who uses it is the person who takes it. That's what using a drug means.
|
That's a side effect of the drug is what you are talking about. I'm talking about the primary effect. Your mother's irritability is a side effect of the drug, but she still recieves the benefits of the primary effect. The same is not true in the case of an abortifacient. The unborn child recieves the primary effect of the drug, and so you could say, that the unborn child takes the drug, more so than the mother.
quote:
If there is a prescription, they're just pill pushers, as the doctor decides.. If not, it depends on the law. IMHO, they're pill pushers plus advice. They can advise, but if it's over the counter, they can't refuse to sell, like someone in a shop can't refuse to sell a good they stock and have priced up.
|
So why would a pharmacist be forced to stock this drug? Wouldn't that be legal for a pharmacy to refuse to carry the drug in the first place?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
And that's one of my points that I would have had to bring up. If we are going to determine whether someone ought to live, or die, the standard should be something not subject to interpretation.
|
I concur, but since that is a matter of rationality, it still leaves the question of love and emotion. Namely, the mother. The question remains open.
quote:
Stop there. I did not say brain dead. I said merely lacking conscious thought, since that was not your standard. If you are changing your standard to detectable brain activity, then you should do so throughout, rather than referring to conscious thought.
|
My apologies. My argument is that you can never know with anyone that they are a person, you can only assume so. Again, cogito ergo sum. Stop me when I sound too solipcist  . I would contend however that in an unconscious state, the only means of communication to determine whether someone is a being or a lifeform is brain activity. That has interesting implications for animal welfare.
I won't debate you BK, since I have no position as such of my own. I'm not afraid to admit that I don't have opinions on everything, am open to ideas. I know how I would form one, that is what I have communicated, and you have taken that and added your interpretation, thus demonstrated your view, which is fine. I have not done so yet because there are assumptions in my view I have yet to explore fully. Be assured that when I do, you'll be the first to know  .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
A gun can be used to hunt animals, hence my point about persons. |
And as such, a gun needs more restrictions. I'd put killing an animal above killing an unwanted foetus, personally. One's a potential life, one already *is* life.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's a side effect of the drug is what you are talking about. I'm talking about the primary effect. Your mother's irritability is a side effect of the drug, but she still recieves the benefits of the primary effect. The same is not true in the case of an abortifacient. The unborn child recieves the primary effect of the drug, and so you could say, that the unborn child takes the drug, more so than the mother. |
But the mother is the one that actually *takes* the drug. Taking does not mean having the effect of, as you can take a placebo. Taking means the means with which it is ingested, either by swallowing a pill or injecting a drug. If you swallow a pill, you have taken that pill. Any effect does not change the act of taking it. The primary effect of the drug is to remove the mother's support of the child. The secondary effect is to kill the child, IMHO.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So why would a pharmacist be forced to stock this drug? Wouldn't that be legal for a pharmacy to refuse to carry the drug in the first place? |
Depends on the law. In the UK, pharmacists are required to stock or be able to get hold of all prescribed drugs, IIRC. So yes, they would have to, if they wanted a license.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How is the abortifacient drug helping the woman Ming? |
The women has decided to take it, ergo she has decided it is helping her. An unwanted baby might not help her. She may lack financial support, time, energy, or many other things, meaning she doesn't want the baby. If I don't want something, and choose not to have it, I'd say it's helped me.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So why are doctors prescribing a drug that could seriously harm their patients? Unless there is a real medical benefit from using these pills it makes sense, but if there is not, then it makes no sense at all for the doctor, if they are interested in their patient's welfare to prescribe these pills. |
Because unlike you, the doctors believe that when it is the patients desire not to have that baby, it is a problem for them to have it. Thus they act to stop that. The mother is their patient, not the foetus. How can the drug seriously harm the mother? The doctor is interested in the patients welfare, the mother may be better off without being pregnant.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So fine. If they are forced to sell these pills, then they can also challenge the justification behind selling them. It's a two way street. If they can't choose what they stock, then they can change the rules so that pharmacies do not stock these pills. |
They can, but it's the doctor that decides, and fills the prescription, not the pharmacist.
Sorry for answering for Ming, just like the discussion (and bored on lunch break  ).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
And as such, a gun needs more restrictions. I'd put killing an animal above killing an unwanted foetus, personally. One's a potential life, one already *is* life.
|
An unborn child is an animal too. They respire, they grow, they develop just like other living things.
If you say they are not alive, then when do they become alive? Living things do not come from dead things. You don't get little bugs from the sky, from water, without first having other living things there.
Haven't you ever heard of the problem with abiogenesis, Drogue? If living things can only come from living things, then the living infant, must also have a living progenitor, the unborn child.
quote:
But the mother is the one that actually *takes* the drug. Taking does not mean having the effect of, as you can take a placebo. Taking means the means with which it is ingested, either by swallowing a pill or injecting a drug.
|
So who gets the drug applied to them? The child or the mother? It's not clear from the application that it is only the mother to whom the pill is applied.
quote:
The primary effect of the drug is to remove the mother's support of the child. The secondary effect is to kill the child, IMHO
|
That's like saying the primary effect of suffocation is to remove the support of air from a person, and the secondary effect is to kill him.
quote:
Depends on the law. In the UK, pharmacists are required to stock or be able to get hold of all prescribed drugs, IIRC. So yes, they would have to, if they wanted a license.
|
If enough pharmacists opposed these pills could they change the licensing requirements?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
An unborn child is an animal too. They respire, they grow, they develop just like other living things. |
So do paracites. If they can survive on their own, fine. If not, they have no right to feed off the mother until they can. The same as a tapeworm. It may be alive, but at the expense of the mother. It has no right to be alive, IMHO, at the exspense of someone else.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So who gets the drug applied to them? The child or the mother? It's not clear from the application that it is only the mother to whom the pill is applied. |
The mother takes the pill, so it is applied to her.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's like saying the primary effect of suffocation is to remove the support of air from a person, and the secondary effect is to kill him. |
If the aim was to remove the air, and not to kill him, yes. The primary effect is the intended effect, and all others are side effects. The intended effect is to remove the child from the mother, and thus is the primary effect. If the child dies in the process of that, then that is a side effect.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If enough pharmacists opposed these pills could they change the licensing requirements? |
If they can get their congressmen/senators to get a bill through, yes. But that's a legal matter. Do I think they should be able to refuse to stock certain? No?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
The women has decided to take it, ergo she has decided it is helping her. An unwanted baby might not help her. She may lack financial support, time, energy, or many other things, meaning she doesn't want the baby. If I don't want something, and choose not to have it, I'd say it's helped me.
|
So why not throw a costly and difficult toddler in the trash for these same reasons?
And none of these are medical benefits. This is like saying a placebo has demonstrable medical effects because people feel better after taking them.
quote:
Because unlike you, the doctors believe that when it is the patients desire not to have that baby, it is a problem for them to have it.
|
So why is the solution to this problem to kill the child? There are many other ways to solve the problem.
quote:
How can the drug seriously harm the mother?
|
Good question.
www.princeton.edu/ec/ecpnyou.html
About 50% of women experience nausea and 20% vomit. A far more serious side effect is the increased risk of ectopic pregnancy. The Princeton University website promoting ECPs also warns: "It is possible ... that a woman using ECPs could have one of the dangerous or even fatal complications that have been reported in very rare cases with normal, prolonged use of birth control pills. These include: thrombophlebitis (blood clots in the legs), lung clots, heart attack, stroke, liver damage, liver tumor, gallbladder disease, and high blood pressure"
http://opr.princeton.edu/ec/ecpnyou.htm
www.fwhc.org/ecinfo_n.htm
What are the Risk Factors for ECP Use?
Women who smoke cigarettes and those who have experienced any of the following conditions are advised not to take ECPs: blood clots in the legs or lungs, cancer of the breast or reproductive organs, stroke, heart attack, and "any serious medical disorder such as diabetes, liver disease, heart disease, kidney disease, sever migraine headaches, or high blood pressure"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
So do paracites. If they can survive on their own, fine. If not, they have no right to feed off the mother until they can.
|
Biologically, you cannot have a parasite of the same species as the host.
quote:
It may be alive, but at the expense of the mother. It has no right to be alive, IMHO, at the exspense of someone else.
|
Then most children also have no right to depend on their parents, and we do not have the right to depend on each other.
Remember your praise of my point that no man is an Island?
quote:
The mother takes the pill, so it is applied to her.
|
Okay. But what are the medical benefits that justify the use of ecp?
quote:
If the aim was to remove the air, and not to kill him, yes.
|
So if I said that I intended to remove all the air from someone I would not be charged with murder?
That's not right, Drogue. Of course I would be charged with murder even if I said I only intended to remove the air, because I know that to remove the air from someone will result in his death.
The same here. To remove the support from the child, is like suffocating him. One should be just as responsible as in the first case.
quote:
If they can get their congressmen/senators to get a bill through, yes. But that's a legal matter. Do I think they should be able to refuse to stock certain? No?
|
That's dumb. The medical authorities should get to decide what gets stocked and what does not. The very fact that the politicians get involved tells me that pharmacy supplies are more about politics than about medicine.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-09-2004 16:50
Put it much better than I did.
|