View Single Post
Old 03-06-2006, 07:25 PM   #48
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Brain activity can be stopped completely, that is, people can have a 'flat' EEG [and still survive].
Not for a week.

So yes, a person in the same cognitive capabilities of a fetus should be let to die, but that is another discussion for another time.
What happens when you know, barring rather unlikely circumstances, that the person will recover? Is it still ethical to kill them?
A contrieved example that has yet to happen. But if we are to be consistent, then we should let those who pay for the treatment decide. If the government pays for the treatment, then it is a political decision, if the government doesn't want to pay for it, then it's none of its business.

A fetus does not just pop into having the ability to think; there is a natural progression of neurological activity that begins at conception
Maybe I should get into the habit of counting the mistakes and misrepresentations I catch you making. Is this the third or the fourth in this thread?

Myelination of the nerve fibres begins in the third month, with the first myelination occurring in the cranial nerves that arise from the midbrain and medulla oblongata. The ventricular system (which allows the flow of cerebrospinal fluid throughout the brain and spinal cord) is now largely complete.
Found here

And this tells you why myelination is important. In point of fact, the central nervous system in all animals of 'higher' order than amphibians is made up of myelinated nerves.

I tire of this exercise. I'll be back when you've adressed my most important points:
  1. Why do you provide us only with a truncated biography, and not your full list?
  2. Why do you cut and paste verbatim from fundie websites without providing reference or attribution?
  3. Why do you not provide us with a consistent definition of 'living human' that obeys the criteria I outlined previously?
  4. Why do you claim - untruthfully - that there was no significant public health benefit from legalising abortions, when in fact the very numbers you yourself provided indicate otherwise (even using very conservative assumptions)?

Oh, I'll make one final remark, since you explicitly asked me for an explanation:

ET stated that you have no right to impose your extremist 'moral' code on everyone else. Then you asked whether he thought it appropriate for him to impose his moral code of not mugging people in the streets on muggers. And I pointed out that it was a false dichotomy, since it does not follow that lack of an absolutist moral code means total lack of a moral code.

One of the most important facts of life is that ethics can never be completely consistent, since each decision is based on an individual judgement call. Some people choose to deposit their ethics with an absolutist moral code, but it would be a mistake to assume that that necessarily makes their ethics consistent.

I would even argue that that is an immoral choice to make, since it marks a refusal to make an independent judgement - in effect it deposits your critical thinking with whatever authority you choose to take your absolutist moral code from.

Now I'm off to bed.

Incidentially, the last three paragraphs were written at 2 AM, so they may not make a lot of sense...

Last edited by ShadowTemplar; 03-06-2006 at 08:02 PM.
ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: