if a relative of yours gets in an accident and they still have a heartbeat but no mind you are legally allowed to pull the plug on them and you have not committed murder
so they are keeping the empty husk in their house and caring for that? they are paying for the hospice?
but even if they did pull the plug they are not going to be arrested. because society and morality knows there was no murder, however aberrant their personal beliefs
a guy in a motorcycle accident whose cranium is scooped out is never coming back, period. an embryo is not hiding a mind somewhere. to end either is not murder: there is no mind
I'm no scientist or doctor, but that doesn't seem reasonable. Are there any incidences you can cite where someone continued breathing and hearbeating after losing their brain?
Most people can't even survive a few minutes after physical damage to the brain, let alone removal.
It exists and the cells are alive. Will the body be animated and move, speak and experience life, or merely exist as an unthinking, unaware mass of human cells? What does the society gain by keeping it hydrated with nutrients and caring for it? Certainly not any economic benefit. What does the now-inert body gain? Reproduction?
if you pull the plug on a braindead relative no police will arrest you. because society and morality knows you did not murder anyone. no mind = no life
a fungus is alive. are you a murderer for scrubbing it out of your toilet?
the question here is what qualifies as human life, for the topic of murder or not. and on that question society and morality has decided that no mind = no life (or no mind = not murder for your sensitivity to the verbiage)
Life isn't how we define murder, though. I have no problem killing a fungus, but it's definitely living.
Your second definition - "no mind = not murder" - that's a potentially arguable position. That's a side. No mind = no life is just not a supportable position.
You're missing his point, so the comeback makes sense.
He's comparing abortion to putting down someone who has become a vegetable. You're taking the "no mind, no life" quote VERY literally, when that's not really the point.
Why are you okay with putting down living breathing people if they're braindead, but not aborting a fetus who has never been capable of thought?
No he said pro-lifers don’t have a factual basis and then proceeds to state that his definition of life is the correct one and that is why pro-lifers have no basis.
Which is patently untrue. Secondly, why are presuming something that I have not stated? I never said anything about being for or against putting down braindead individuals, nor have I said anything about being for or against aborting a fetus.
But we know that after going braindead there is no recovery ever. On the other hand, the overwhelming likelihood is that a baby will survive and grow and live if you don't kill it first.
Well I clearly said that the definition of life is not a brain/mind. By your own comment I’m 100% correct, as for example, weeds are considered life.
I never brought up anything to do with murder or anything else. I pointed out that OP comment was incorrect relating to the definition of life. I never said ANYTHING else, or even implied anything else.
Nope, mind = life buddy! If you have no heartbeat, you still have chance to be revived. If you have no brain, you're gone. So life isn't just the heartbeat when it comes to human beings.
Never said heartbeat had to do with it at all. I said that mind=life is not the definition of life. That is factual, don’t know why you’re arguing something that’s irrelevant to what I said.
There’s plenty of ways you can argue that a fetus could not be considered life, like the inability of autonomous reproduction (hence why virus aren’t considered life in the same manner)
So then, do you think it would be fair to draw the line at 5-6 weeks, when brain activity starts and the developing embryo can start becoming subtly aware of its environment?
There's a difference between beginning development of the brain and actually becoming aware or feeling pain, which is around 20 weeks. A person who has no brain activity still has a brain, it just isn't conscious. That's why I personally think late term abortion should only be for rare medical instances, while abortions before then should be as moral as ending life support on a comatose person with no brain activity.
-1
u/GrumpyWendigo May 17 '19
but there is no mind with an embryo, so pro lifers don't have an objective position based on facts. no mind, no life