View Single Post
Old 03-07-2006, 11:20 AM   #59
Samuel Dravis
@Samuel Dravis
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,980
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
You can't have an exact time table, but it IS possible to test a fetus for brain activity, and if that's there, then it's clearly too late into term for an abortion, barring extreme physical danger to the mother.
Why can't you have a timetable if it's just a physical occurance? Surely there is some point that a fetus can be certain not to have perception?

And I've revised my argument to eliminate the ambiguity, you simply refuse to let go of your assertion that I'm saying it's okay to kill a person whose brain stops working for 5 seconds, which I haven't said, and am not saying now. A fetus has never HAD brain activity, and it isn't going to have brain activity in the next 10 minutes, or even 10 days. A person who goes 10 days without brain activity would be declared brain-dead. There would be almost zero expectation of recovery, they are no longer a person.
I said that in my analogy there is a very reasonable expectation of recovery, just as the fetus has a very reasonable expectation of being able to think. Both are technically braindead, and you said that means they're not a person.

Just like marijuana being illegal has ensured that nobody ever smokes it.
Simply using marijuana does not risk an innocent dying. I don't think it would be all that bad to legalize it for home use. When your decisions start affecting other people, however, yes you will be responsible, same as DWI. The consequences must be commensurate with the thing being risked, and the thing being risked is an innocent human person. I'm interested in if you oppose the death penalty, and if so, why?

I honestly have no idea when I've said that everything is explainable by physics, or where you're pulling THIS from. It seems you're once again putting words into my mouth... Because physics certainly doesn't explain biology, or chemistry. Obviously our current physics cannot even explain everything in it's own field, or we wouldn't be studying it anymore.
That was my point. You said that physical reality (i.e., brain activity) does not denote personality, because a person who has a flat EEG is still a person during that state. Then you said that nothing exists that can hold the personhood that is not in physical reality. According to you, both physical reality and any sort of soul are not definitions for personhood, making the ability to be a person impossible through your definition of personhood. You don't know if your current physics is correct, so basing your actions on assumptions should be done a little more carefully than you are.

I do believe that there IS a physics that would explain how everything works, but we're nowhere near to understanding it. I also don't have the slightest idea HOW this applies to this discussion at. all.
My second point was that you have no way of defining physics other than by itself, and because of that you have no way of knowing that all there is to physics is really all there is to know. Therefore, you do not have a way to prove that a fetus is not a person by science. You're making an assumption, not a statement of absolute truth as you present it, and you're not even trying to determine if the fetus is a person or not if you don't support every single test we have the ability to make, and even then you could be wrong.

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 03-07-2006 at 12:05 PM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: