User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 104

  1. #11
    Member MJ_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFj
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Does any human (however anyone defines it) have the right to use the organs and blood supply of another without that person's consent? Thats another important part of the debate. (And for the sake of argument, no one can tell another person what they do or do not consent to. Consent must be freely given).

    I think its kind of telling that the philosophically debatable 'human' becomes the 'crux' of a debate when an actual human with rights of their own is most definately involved.

  2. #12
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MJ_ View Post
    Does any human (however anyone defines it) have the right to use the organs and blood supply of another without that person's consent?
    Well, I don't know about organs and blood supply, but our society has decided that certain humans (i.e., young ones) do have the right to food and shelter at the expense of their parents, without the parents' consent if necessary. People are prosecuted for child neglect every day in this country... and, I believe, rightly so.

  3. #13
    Senior Member sriv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    JIxT
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    Pointless that we debate whose definition is more correct.
    True. But most of us live in a democracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Oberon's is a point I've made before myself in abortion debates. If we don't know, isn't it best to err on the side of caution?

    The problem with the caution approach taken all the way back to fertilization (as opposed to implantation) is that it then means that the only acceptable forms of contraception are barriers and fertility awareness. Illegalize the pill, IUD, and other forms of birth control that prevent implantation but may allow ovulation and thus fertilization, and IMO we've got a social crisis on our hands.
    Good point.
    So you consider the zygote a human organism, which makes sense.
    Reyson: ...If you were to change your ways, I'm sure we could rebuild the relationship the two of us once shared.

    Naesala: Oh no, that I could never do. You see, humans are essential to the fulfillment of my ambitions.

    Reyson: You've changed, Naesala. If this is the path you've chosen, I've nothing left to say.

  4. #14
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MJ_ View Post
    Does any human (however anyone defines it) have the right to use the organs and blood supply of another without that person's consent? Thats another important part of the debate. (And for the sake of argument, no one can tell another person what they do or do not consent to. Consent must be freely given).

    I think its kind of telling that the philosophically debatable 'human' becomes the 'crux' of a debate when an actual human with rights of their own is most definately involved.
    Doesn't engaging in sex (assuming a person knows what the possible consequences could be) imply consent?
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  5. #15
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    ...Illegalize the pill, IUD, and other forms of birth control that prevent implantation but may allow ovulation and thus fertilization, and IMO we've got a social crisis on our hands.
    Along with a new industry to run memorial services for the 25% or even higher percentage of pregnancies that are miscarried by the sixth week.

    Anyway, obviously the zygote is alive.
    It's usually also got the genetic makeup of a human being.
    That makes it "human life," right?

    Quote Originally Posted by sriv
    The only point of classifying something under "human being" is that a human being has rights.
    Yes, it's an argument over "at what point" does a developing human life has legal rights.

    Just imagine all the poor embryos frozen, in stasis, in a freezer somewhere because only some of them needed to be implanted in the mother's womb artificially. Human life, certainly; do they have a right to be implanted somewhere, because they are unfairly locked up in what could be a permanently arrested stage of development? can the in vitro company be brought up on charges?

    And don't think the conventional wisdom about "souls" doesn't have anything to do with the conflict. If souls exist and are equal, and every fertilized egg gets one, then aborting the human life is murdering the soul's body. If souls -- our essence as individual people -- aren't implanted and instead "develop over time" (i.e., all human beings are "developing souls" and we're not separate from our bodies at all, really), then what would that mean logically for this argument? There's a lot here that just will never be teased out. I think a rigid answer is always Procrustean and bound to not fit every situation.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #16
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sriv View Post
    True. But most of us live in a democracy.


    Good point.
    So you consider the zygote a human organism, which makes sense.
    I don't think there's much medical/scientific debate about that. The debate comes in when you start to consider which level of development a human organism becomes a person.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  7. #17
    Senior Member sriv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    JIxT
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    I don't think there's much medical/scientific debate about that. The debate comes in when you start to consider which level of development a human organism becomes a person.
    I meant to say the beginning of human life. Yeah, you're right.
    Reyson: ...If you were to change your ways, I'm sure we could rebuild the relationship the two of us once shared.

    Naesala: Oh no, that I could never do. You see, humans are essential to the fulfillment of my ambitions.

    Reyson: You've changed, Naesala. If this is the path you've chosen, I've nothing left to say.

  8. #18
    Member MJ_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFj
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Well, I don't know about organs and blood supply, but our society has decided that humans do have the right to food and shelter at the expense of their parents, without the parents' consent if necessary. People are prosecuted for child neglect every day in this country... and, I believe, rightly so.
    Those parents also have the option of placing a child for adoption, or placing a child in foster care. People who neglect children should be prosecuted, because they have the option of ensuring the child is taken care of by others if they cannot or will not do so themselves. Its as simple as going to a police or fire station with an infant, no questions asked in many jurisdictions. Children are dependent on someone, but not a specific single individual for their lives.

    A pregnant woman does not have the option of transferring a fetus (or defenseless innocent human, whatever your preference) to someone else. It is her blood, kidney function, pancreas, and calcium stores. It is her uterus, with a 25% chance of having a C-section in the US. No one else's. Does any human have the right to those, without consent?
    Last edited by MJ_; 08-05-2008 at 11:29 AM. Reason: forgot to quote

  9. #19
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MJ_ View Post
    Those parents also have the option of placing a child for adoption, or placing a child in foster care. People who neglect children should be prosecuted, because they have the option of ensuring the child is taken care of by others if they cannot or will not do so themselves. Its as simple as going to a police or fire station with an infant, no questions asked in many jurisdictions. Children are dependent on someone, but not a specific single individual for their lives.

    A pregnant woman does not have the option of transferring a fetus (or defenseless innocent human, whatever your preference) to someone else. It is her blood, kidney function, pancreas, and calcium stores. It is her uterus, with a 25% chance of having a C-section in the US. No one else's. Does any human have the right to those, without consent?
    I'm not feeling this line of reasoning. I think if you engage in sex, and you know it can lead to pregnancy, you've consented. Furthermore, as it applies to matters between humans outside the womb, a person can give consent and withdraw it at any time. This isn't the case with pregnancy--after a certain threshold the pregnant woman can no longer withdraw her consent and "evict" the fetus. Pregnancy, in nearly every way, upsets the apple cart of ethics between people.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  10. #20
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MJ_ View Post
    A pregnant woman does not have the option of transferring a fetus (or defenseless innocent human, whatever your preference) to someone else. It is her blood, kidney function, pancreas, and calcium stores. It is her uterus, with a 25% chance of having a C-section in the US. No one else's. Does any human have the right to those, without consent?
    Well, let's turn the question around. Should temporary theft of these resources be a capital crime?

Similar Threads

  1. At what point do you stop trying to grow and just accept your type?
    By Usehername in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-29-2011, 12:28 AM
  2. How one becomes a human being?
    By Hine in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-09-2011, 11:27 AM
  3. At what point does a good person...
    By Kiddo in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-07-2008, 10:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO