Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Suppose a pregnant woman receives a prenatal diagnoses that her full-term, gestational age fetus will die during delivery. By your reasoning, it is acceptable for her to have an abortion performed because it coincides with nature taking its course.
Not the same thing.
Whether or not many would find unplugging oneself from the famous unconscious violinist to be acceptable, does not affect whether or not one has a moral obligation to remain plugged into the famous unconscious violinist.
Her argument is not that the woman has no responsibility to the fetus, but that the right to bodily integrity of the woman is more stringent than the right to life of the fetus.
par·a·site n. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered in or on another organism while contributing nothing to the survival of the host.
There are two fundamental differences between the sentient fox, the mute townspeople, and the comatose person in your examples, and a fetus:[list=1][*]The sentient fox, the mute townspeople, and the comatose person are existent persons, whereas the fetus is a potential person.
[*]The sentient fox, the mute townspeople, and the comatose person are not growing, feeding, and being sheltered inside another organism.[/list]
Though highly implausible--just like the violinist example--let us say for a moment that a baby was born very prematurely. However, since it was born, it is considered an infant and not something less than human. In order to ensure the survival of the baby, a doctor decides to use a new procedure where he creates an artificial uterus/umbilical cord to implant inside the woman so that she may continue to carry the baby until "full term"--basically, the infant becomes a fetus again.
Now, would killing this infant--it is a human, after all, since it was born--be wrong? It is being grown, fed, and sheltered inside another organism (the mother, if we're going to get THAT clinical)...and yet, many would take issue with killing it.
Originally posted by FeceMan
If we're going this route, then suppose that one realizes his family are all going to die one day. He decides to help nature take its course by murdering them in their sleep.Not the same thing.
Your argument attempts to justify unplugging oneself from the famous unconscious violinist by characterizing doing so as a form of passive euthanasia, without realizing that in many instances, abortion can be characterized this way as well.
Originally posted by FeceMan
And what I said is that shooting the violinist in the head is, on a fundamental level, the same thing as unplugging oneself from him. However, there is a difference between passive and active euthanasia--one is obviously unacceptable regardless of any moral obligation.
The acceptability of one form of euthanasia or another does not affect the moral obligation of one to the famous unconscious violinist.
Originally posted by FeceMan
You just said that her analogy with the violinist dealt with the question of moral obligation--so when does a woman have a moral obligation to the life of a fetus?
You cannot have it both ways. The woman has a moral obligation to the life of the fetus the moment you concede that you have a moral obligation to the famous unconscious violinist.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Thanks for the dictionary definition. You probably could have read a little further and saved yourself the trouble of putting that in...
You probably could have read the definition of "parasite," and saved yourself the trouble of arguing that in "a strictly biological sense, an infant is a parasite," when it does not feed, grow, or is sheltered inside another organism.
Originally posted by FeceMan
The question is, why do they not lose their humanity once they stop exhibiting characteristics of being human? (Something I addressed in the original post.) Though the people are not growing/feeding/sheltered inside another organism, that does not change the fact that they do not exhibit all the characteristics of being human.
No one argued that personhood stops when one does not exhibit characteristics of personhood. To the contrary, it is being argued that the sentient fox, the mute townspeople, and the comatose person in your examples are persons, and that a fetus is not.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Though highly implausible--just like the violinist example--let us say for a moment that a baby was born very prematurely. However, since it was born, it is considered an infant and not something less than human. In order to ensure the survival of the baby, a doctor decides to use a new procedure where he creates an artificial uterus/umbilical cord to implant inside the woman so that she may continue to carry the baby until "full term"--basically, the infant becomes a fetus again.Now, would killing this infant--it is a human, after all, since it was born--be wrong? It is being grown, fed, and sheltered inside another organism (the mother, if we're going to get THAT clinical)...and yet, many would take issue with killing it.
In this instance, killing the infant would not be wrong, because it would coincide with "nature taking its course," remember? "Passive euthanasia."
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, yes, that was the joke...glad you got it.
Originally posted by botankus
Boy, I can't wait for round 2 of this one.
the past couple of pages are just comedic GOLD.
i must say though, that the peaks of my laughter fell at these two posts.
tears...thats how hard i was laughing