By this argument, what right does anyone have to claim their views are the correct one?
Generally we can agree on certain key assumptions/rules. It is the issues wherein we can't even start to set said assumptions that are the most contentious.
But obviously, we need some sort of definition, right? I prefer one that isn't exclusive to humans, and isn't contingent on the human body to define someone as a person. Most definitions of personhood as beginning at conception are highly rooted in religious beliefs (and not just Christians, I should add) that originate well before we understood anything about the development of a fertilized egg into a fetus. And they come from a time when you'd be lucky if half your children survived and spilling one's seed was also considered a grave sin.
I don't disagree with this.
But if a person is defined as an individual who can capable of thought, then obviously people in comas or in a vegetative state aren't people. A large number of mentally disabled people may not count either.
The point being- the main contention in this debate lies in the definition. What defines being human? What defines being alive? Afaik there is no definitive answer to either of these.
For the third time, I beg to differ. If selfishness means anything at all, it must necessarily exclude actions where the self surrenders a valuable thing (it's own life) for the sake of something outside of the self (the baby's life). On it's face, that is the opposite of selfishness.
On its face, it may appear that way. But if you look deeper, you can see a woman who chooses to abandon her children (both born and unborn) as well as her fiancee in order to uphold her desire to carry her unborn child to term. She is making a decision that, while it may not seem to *benefit* her directly, it gives her what she wants and leaves other people to handle all of the fallout.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
On its face, it may appear that way. But if you look deeper, you can see a woman who chooses to abandon her children (both born and unborn) as well as her fiancee in order to uphold her desire to carry her unborn child to term. She is making a decision that, while it may not seem to *benefit* her directly, it gives her what she wants and leaves other people to handle all of the fallout.
That's an extremely twisted view of her decision matrix, and assumes that your values are universally correct and/or were shared by her.
What you have, instead, is a woman who was faced with the following choice:
Do I sacrifice my child so that I can live?
She can deprive her other child, and her spouse, of her companionship - but give them the benefit of the companioinship of a new child (not necessarily equal things, but comparable)
-or-
She can deprive them of the new child in a bid to stay alive and give them her companionship.
The key to this analysis is that if you are treating the unborn as anything other than a full fledged child you are not properly framing the question, even if you disagree with her position. In order for an act to be "selfish" it has to be self-centered -- the person doing the act must be doing it for their own benefit. If their reasons for doing it are not selfish, then the act is not selfish.
In this case her reasons for doing it are 100% selfless. It is the exact opposite of a selfish act.
[quote from="Jay13x »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/water-cooler-talk/574253-mothers-ultimate-sacrifice-for-newborn?comment=75"]I don't disagree with this.
But if a person is defined as an individual who can capable of thought, then obviously people in comas or in a vegetative state aren't people. A large number of mentally disabled people may not count either.
The point being- the main contention in this debate lies in the definition. What defines being human? What defines being alive? Afaik there is no definitive answer to either of these.
This is a bit of a strawman, and one I've seen before, so let me point out the problems with it. People who are actually brain dead versus people who are simply in a coma or have mental illness have significantly different brain patterns (namely, they have some). People with a mental illnesses or disabilities are just sick, like any other illness. Even the most mentally disabled human being still has above average intelligence compared to most of the animal kingdom.
This is a bit of a strawman, and one I've seen before, so let me point out the problems with it. People who are actually brain dead versus people who are simply in a coma or have mental illness have significantly different brain patterns (namely, they have some). People with a mental illnesses or disabilities are just sick, like any other illness. Even the most mentally disabled human being still has above average intelligence compared to most of the animal kingdom.
I don't think so. I think it's simply a matter of definitions.
Are you alive if you are capable of expressing your thoughts? Are you alive if you look like what a human is supposed to do look and just existing? Are you alive if you have some brain activity?
Etc. Etc. Etc.
This entire debate hinges on this. Just what exactly does it mean to be human? Just what exactly does it mean to be alive?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Generally we can agree on certain key assumptions/rules. It is the issues wherein we can't even start to set said assumptions that are the most contentious.
I don't disagree with this.
But if a person is defined as an individual who can capable of thought, then obviously people in comas or in a vegetative state aren't people. A large number of mentally disabled people may not count either.
The point being- the main contention in this debate lies in the definition. What defines being human? What defines being alive? Afaik there is no definitive answer to either of these.
On its face, it may appear that way. But if you look deeper, you can see a woman who chooses to abandon her children (both born and unborn) as well as her fiancee in order to uphold her desire to carry her unborn child to term. She is making a decision that, while it may not seem to *benefit* her directly, it gives her what she wants and leaves other people to handle all of the fallout.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
That's an extremely twisted view of her decision matrix, and assumes that your values are universally correct and/or were shared by her.
What you have, instead, is a woman who was faced with the following choice:
Do I sacrifice my child so that I can live?
She can deprive her other child, and her spouse, of her companionship - but give them the benefit of the companioinship of a new child (not necessarily equal things, but comparable)
-or-
She can deprive them of the new child in a bid to stay alive and give them her companionship.
The key to this analysis is that if you are treating the unborn as anything other than a full fledged child you are not properly framing the question, even if you disagree with her position. In order for an act to be "selfish" it has to be self-centered -- the person doing the act must be doing it for their own benefit. If their reasons for doing it are not selfish, then the act is not selfish.
In this case her reasons for doing it are 100% selfless. It is the exact opposite of a selfish act.
This is a bit of a strawman, and one I've seen before, so let me point out the problems with it. People who are actually brain dead versus people who are simply in a coma or have mental illness have significantly different brain patterns (namely, they have some). People with a mental illnesses or disabilities are just sick, like any other illness. Even the most mentally disabled human being still has above average intelligence compared to most of the animal kingdom.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I don't think so. I think it's simply a matter of definitions.
Are you alive if you are capable of expressing your thoughts? Are you alive if you look like what a human is supposed to do look and just existing? Are you alive if you have some brain activity?
Etc. Etc. Etc.
This entire debate hinges on this. Just what exactly does it mean to be human? Just what exactly does it mean to be alive?