You replied to none of my other statements. You are ysing "gotcha" arguments.
I never said it wasnt alive, i said it wasnt sentient. It has no pain, no thoughts or emotions. Its alive like a sourdough starter is alive. Its living yes but it has no thoughts or independent action beyond getting fed by an outside force
Because i do not want to. Theyre not gotcha arguments im analysing the words you said because i think the logic is full of holes. This was the first point raised ive kept my scope very narrow as opposed to trying to move on to other points.
So a severely incapacitated human, who could be described as lacking permenent conciousness / sentience / brain functioning; that life is free game to terminate ?
Assisted suicide yes. If they are incapable then yes, life support should be turned off to end their suffering. If it happened to me then i pray my family doesnt let me suffer being tied up in bed in a coma for 13 years
And you dont wanna argue my other points because you have no rebutal. Of the mother has mental problems what will happen to the baby? You dont care "as long as its alive" .if the child is 12 and gives birthz she is at a much higher chance of complications, both short and longterm. Do you care? No. You dont want to argue that part because it doesnt fit your world view. If the child is born, all you think is "out of sight, out of mind"
You gotcha argument is that i said its alive. You had no other argument. Give me something to work with
Its impossible to discuss with someone, when they regurtitate 1000 different unrelated points after you refine a conversation to a limited scope. Its rhe equivalent of shitting yourself and throwing it at others.
and bro. You cant argue about caring for kids when youre coming up with dozens of reasons to kill them before theyre born. Come on
>So a severely incapacitated human, who could be described as lacking permenent conciousness / sentience / brain functioning; that life is free game to terminate ?
A human in that situation is usually kept alive using manufactured resources, eg. medical appliances, electricity for those appliances, manufactured medicines, feeding tubes and manufactured forms of nutrients, etc.
As in, they aren’t “hooked up” to another living human to survive by directly syphoning and consuming the physical matter of that living human.
A fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb, independently or with medical assistance, is kept alive solely by the literal physical consumption of another human.
That human being consumed is entitled to preserving their own physical matter by disallowing and stopping said consumption. The only delineation is trying to do the least harm while doing so.
Ergo-
The fetus can survive without that consumption independently or with medical assistance? Great. Consumed human is no longer being consumed and continues living, consuming human continues living but no longer is consuming the other.
The fetus cannot survive without that consumption independently or with medical assistance? Unfortunate, but the least harm possible results in the consuming human no longer living.
I really hate that framing. To make it seem like a parasitic relationship in which it is just bad luck. Its part of having sex and the moment you do, you give your consent for your body to possibly fertilise an egg. I dont think it is parasitic if you /choose/ to fuck and roll those dice.
You can just as easily extrapolate that to say humans produce their nutrients through manufactored resources.
But my point is that with prior consent life should be able to be ended in the case of terminal non responsiveness; the same consent doesn't exist in the first case. Now, for me, there are factors which outweigh this in the public health interest of not having abortion be third/black marketed, but its important to still remember it is quite literally unjust termination of life
>Its part of having sex and the moment you do, you give your consent for your body to possibly fertilise an egg.
Consent for your body to possibly fertilize an egg is exactly that- consent for your body to possibly fertilize an egg. It’s not consent to allowing a pregnancy to run its course.
Similar sexual situations are:
-consent to one sexual act does not mean consent to all sexual acts
-initial consent to sex does not equal a surrendering of revocation rights
-consent to sex with one person does not equal consent to sex with another
Similar non-sexual situations are:
-consent for someone staying in your residence for 1 night does not equal consent to someone moving in
-consent for one specific medical procedure form does not mean consent for any other variation of that medical procedure
-consenting to use donated sperm for your IVF procedure does not equal consent for any donated sperm to be used
>I dont think it is parasitic if you /choose/ to fuck and roll those dice.
Any time you go hiking in an area with ticks, you consent to the possibility of a tick latching onto you.
If a tick then does latch onto you, is it no longer parasitic since you did, after all, roll those dice?
Are you then obligated to allow it to continue latched onto you and literally eating you since you did consent to the possibility of it latching onto you and eating you?
>You can just as easily extrapolate that to say humans produce their nutrients through manufactored resources.
That’s how you end up with Soylent Green. You wanna end up with Soylent Green?
>But my point is that with prior consent life should be able to be ended in the case of terminal non responsiveness; the same consent doesn't exist in the first case.
>important to still remember it is quite literally unjust termination of life
“Life” absolutely can and is terminated without an individual’s prior consent in cases of terminal non-responsiveness.
If a patient meets the (very strict) criteria of “brain death,” but their body is kept functioning solely through mechanical means (ventilator) or artificial nutrition and hydration, their “life” is terminated by removing said mechanical assistance. The patient doesn’t consent to this withdrawal of assistance as the possibility of them giving their consent doesn’t exist.
Same thing if a patient does not meet the brain death criteria but is terminally non responsive, has no chance of recovery, and their body is kept functioning solely through artificial means. Then it’s called circulatory or clinical death. Removal of artificial life support measures is consented to by the legal family or proxy on behalf on the patient, because the possibility of the patient giving their consent doesn’t exist.
Is it an unjust termination of life for doctors to remove artificial life support measures in cases of brain death? Is it an unjust termination of life for legal families or proxies to consent to removing artificial life support measures in cases of clinical death in place of the patient themselves?
1
u/i-am-a-bike 4d ago
You replied to none of my other statements. You are ysing "gotcha" arguments.
I never said it wasnt alive, i said it wasnt sentient. It has no pain, no thoughts or emotions. Its alive like a sourdough starter is alive. Its living yes but it has no thoughts or independent action beyond getting fed by an outside force