*opens up a can of worms*

[dalebert]

The notion of Brain death itself is also questionable

I think that Monty Python dealt with this issue.

God bless you, Dreepa, for introducing reason into such an emotional debate.

[Caleb]

the autopsy afterwards proved conclusively that she suffered from massive brain damage and did not have the  brain function for feeling pain.

What if her brain had been COMPLETELY eroded?  Does that prove that she wasn't capable of any mental functions?  http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm

Let's keep in mind that it wasn't just that they removed her feeding tube:  Her parents were not allowed to give her food or water ORALLY. 

Caleb

[intergraph19]

society has determined that where there is no sentience (consciousness and ability to fell pleasure/pain) defined by higher brain function then there is no "person" deserving of legal protection...and if there is no "person" deserving legal protection there is no murder if the mother or husband chooses to take positive action to ending that human life.

Society never decided that issue, the court did.  Yes, there is a difference.  Finding the right to abortion in the Constitution is beyond my understanding, when gun rights are obviously not in there! 0_o  My stance is still that abortion is murder, and these issues should be decided on a state by state issue.  The Supreme court should not have taken that case in the first place but they did and essentially made up a law out of thin air. 

I do not see brain damage in a fully formed human being caused by outside forces as consistant with a not yet fully formed, unborn child.  That's like saying a car that is totaled in a car accident and should be scrapped is that same as an unfinished car on the assembaly line!  Two completely different popints of reference, so that is not a valid argument. 

[FrankChodorov]

Does that prove that she wasn't capable of any mental functions?

only so much as she wasn't deemed deserving of the state protection that is afforded to persons with higher brain functioning...

Let's keep in mind that it wasn't just that they removed her feeding tube:  Her parents were not allowed to give her food or water ORALLY.

because there was no written directive it is assumed in the state of Florida that the husband will make the health related decisions for her and it was his opinion from knowing her that she would not have wanted to continue "living" in a persistent vegetative state without any higher brain function.

I have signed a statement giving my wife power of attorney to make the same decision if I should ever become that debilitated.

[FrankChodorov]

Society never decided that issue, the court did.  Yes, there is a difference.  Finding the right to abortion in the Constitution is beyond my understanding, when gun rights are obviously not in there! 0_o  My stance is still that abortion is murder, and these issues should be decided on a state by state issue.  The Supreme court should not have taken that case in the first place but they did and essentially made up a law out of thin air.

it is not a right to an abortion but a right to privacy - where the state has no interests to protect.

a blastula is not deemed a human being with higher brain functioning worthy of protection but rather only a potential human being.

I do not see brain damage in a fully formed human being caused by outside forces as consistant with a not yet fully formed, unborn child.  That's like saying a car that is totaled in a car accident and should be scrapped is that same as an unfinished car on the assembaly line!  Two completely different popints of reference, so that is not a valid argument.

it is perfectly consistent...neither have the required higher brain functioning inorder to be deemed worthy of legal protection by the state backed by force.

[Caleb]

Giving someone food, orally, is not a HEALTH DECISION in my book, Frank.  You're just mincing words.

And that's just it:  YOU gave YOUR WIFE written instructions and authority over you under certain circumstances.

No such authority was given to the gentleman in FL.  The COURT made that decision, not the woman.

[FrankChodorov]

No such authority was given to the gentleman in FL.  The COURT made that decision, not the woman.

it is assumed in every state that I know of that the marital contract is honored and takes precedence over every other relationship that the person has unless otherwise stipulated.

do you think this was murder?

do you think a zygote is deserving of state's protection prior to achieving the status of "human being" where no higher brain functioning is present for sentience (consciousness and the feeling of pleasure/pain)?

is this about a potential human being's soul?

[Caleb]

t is assumed in every state that I know of that the marital contract is honored and takes precedence over every other relationship that the person has unless otherwise stipulated.

FLAW 1:  I don't recognize "states", so what they assume or don't assume is meaningless to me.

FLAW 2:  I don't recognize "marriage" as a legal distinction.  I believe it is a religious rite.  A "state" marriage is a meaningless concept, as much as "state communion" or "state baptism" is.

FLAW 3:  I don't believe that a marital relationship entitles someone to deprive another person of the requirements of life:  such as food, clothing, shelter, etc., unless the other person has specifically given such consent.  I do not find any such consent in any of the marital vows with which I am familiar.  And, while I do not believe that the gentleman had any requirement to provide her sustenance if he believed it was against her wishes, I do not recognize his right to use violence to prevent others from providing her sustenence, if they so desired.

do you think this was murder?

Yes

do you think a zygote is deserving of state's protection prior to achieving the status of "human being" where no higher brain functioning is present for sentience (consciousness and the feeling of pleasure/pain)?

This is meaningless to me, Frank.  I don't understand the concept "state protection".  I do not recognize the State.  I prefer to speak of what is "moral" or "immoral".  Yes, it is immoral to destroy a zygote, unless that zygote presents a clear and present danger to the health or life of the mother (and by that, I DON'T mean "emotional health".)

is this about a potential human being's soul?

No.  I trust that God, to whom all soul's belong, will do what is right when it comes to the individual's soul.  This is about justice and morality in the physical realm.

[FrankChodorov]

I don't believe that a marital relationship entitles someone to deprive another person of the requirements of life

I don't believe a former human being without higher brain function actually is a "person" in any meaningful way as it no longer is a sentient "being".

it is immoral to destroy a zygote

immoral in your eyes but not illegal as you don't recognize the state and thus unpunishable except to be shunned - correct?

[tracysaboe]

it is not a right to an abortion but a right to privacy - where the state has no interests to protect.

That's another completly retarded statement that even most pro-abortion libertarians reject.

A right to privacy doesn't mean I have a right to kill by 2 year old baby in my own home.  A person's not allowed to prosecute a murder because it happened in the privacy of his own home?

You need to learn to think for yourself and not simply spout liberal retoric.

This entire threads gotten stupider and stupider since Mr Bill Grennon joined it and people started responding to him.

I'm taking my leave of it again.

Tracy

[FrankChodorov]

A right to privacy doesn't mean I have a right to kill by 2 year old baby in my own home.

a blastula without any higher brain function is not a "2 yr. old baby"...

This entire threads gotten stupider and stupider

since you can't make an intelligent argument...

[intergraph19]

it is not a right to an abortion but a right to privacy - where the state has no interests to protect.

That's another completly retarded statement that even most pro-abortion libertarians reject.

A right to privacy doesn't mean I have a right to kill by 2 year old baby in my own home.  A person's not allowed to prosecute a murder because it happened in the privacy of his own home?

You need to learn to think for yourself and not simply spout liberal retoric.

This entire threads gotten stupider and stupider since Mr Bill Grennon joined it and people started responding to him.

I'm taking my leave of it again.

Tracy

^_^

[Dreepa]

Giving someone food, orally, is not a HEALTH DECISION in my book, Frank.  You're just mincing words.

And that's just it:  YOU gave YOUR WIFE written instructions and authority over you under certain circumstances.

No such authority was given to the gentleman in FL.  The COURT made that decision, not the woman.

If someone is fasting as a protest can we force feed them? Should we ask their parents? The courts?  The spouse?

[Caleb]

Dreepa,

As a matter of human interaction, we should assume that a person wishes the needs of life, unless he or she specifically declines our assistance.  I think it is grasping at straws to compare an unconcious person who is incapable of asking for help to a protester who is making a specific decision to avoid something.  Its like arguing that no one should attempt to rescue unconscious people from fire (since they aren't specifically calling for help), just because there is the occasional yogi who intentionally sets himself on fire.

Jesus gave a parable of a man who had been beaten and left for dead on the side of the road.  Two men walked by and did nothing.  The third came, dressed his wounds, took him to an inn, and paid for the man's stay while he recovered.  Jesus question:  "Which of the men acted like a neighbor?"  The answer is obvious.

In arguing that a person has no OBLIGATION to take care of an ailing individual, I will agree with you.  But it is a very neighborly thing to do, and I certainly will argue that a person has no right to prevent others from acting in the interest of the person.

Caleb

[Caleb]

Frank,

The "higher brain function" argument is a very slippery slope.

Science is incapable of making absolute determinations about what an individual is capable of doing given a certain brain condition.  (as my article on the man with no brian proves).

How much brain function is "enough".  Hitler thought retarded people didn't have enough brain function to warrant keeping around ... At what point do you draw the line, and then at what point do YOU personally gain the right to make the determination of where the line should be drawn?

Caleb