By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Allfreedom99 on 14 March 2012
Edit Thread
Rath said:
Allfreedom99 said:
Rath said:
 

Three things.

Coma != braindead. If he were brain dead the situation is quite different.

Assuming he is braindead (in which case yes I consider him dead) it is not within your authority to 'unplug' him. That is the doctors authority.

Once again assuming he is braindead - I don't think you committed murder but I do think that you just mutilated a body which is in itself a criminal act.

 

Edit: And yes I agree that essentially philosophy defines personhood as consciousness - that still isn't scientific though.

Actually Coma does not mean the individual is "brian dead". a Coma is usually onset by some type of damage to the brain. Those that enter into a coma may wake up and they may not. Who's to say he would not have woken up in the future and returned to a normal human being?

Given that fact Did I end a human life or not?

I think you've misunderstood me. I was saying exactly that, a comatose person is not necessarily brain dead (!= means not equals in lots of programming languages). If the person is not brain dead then I would clearly still consider them a person.

 

@Jumpin. A brain dead person is also biologically a human being. If all you requires is living cells with a unique set of human DNA then the bar for personhood is set rather low.

My point is that when a fetus is conceived it is considered human life.  It imediately begins to develop as a human. anyone saying that the clump of cells in the beginning or fetus is not a human life then they are denying the truth. A conceived fetus is not going to develop into a dog, a kangaroo, or algea. It becomes a human and as such develops as a human through the process in the womb where it is protected.

If then by this how is it different if I end an adult human life in a coma but alive and noone knows them from ending a human life in the womb before it is birthed?