We kill all kinds of living organisms, not because they do or do not have awareness (who cares if a cockroach is or is not aware?) but because there is (a) a reason to kill them and (b) no reason to oppose such killing.

The fact that something is aware is indeed a reason to oppose killing it. In the case of more aware animals it’s not an overwhelming reason, but it’s enough that we need a good reason to kill them. We kill animals for food or medical research, but we have laws about killing – or even mistreating – animals for no reason.

But we have laws prohibiting humans from killing other humans for several reasons, not least of which is the belief in the sanctity of human life and the related belief in equality before the law.

Of course. We’re human, and therefore have an obvious vested interest in protecting human life. No surprise there. A little reflection shows the value of equality before the law as well.

There is no way to breach those two ideals without doing harm to society. They are either-or conditions: either it is true or it is not.

So far, so good.

Once it is not true for a baby, it’s not true, period: if we live in a system where arbitrary judgments can override the sanctity of human life…

Here’s the problem. There is nothing ‘arbitrary’ about the statement that before 20 weeks, a fetus does not have a functional, interconnected brain. Nor is there anything ‘arbitrary’ about the statement that a brain is necessary for awareness. And finally, it’s not ‘arbitrary’ to say that something that is not aware is a ‘something’, a thing and not an agent.

Actually it’s not fair at all to assume any such thing.

We kill all kinds of living organisms, not because they do or do not have awareness (who cares if a cockroach is or is not aware?) but because there is (a) a reason to kill them and (b) no reason to oppose such killing.

But we have laws prohibiting humans from killing other humans for several reasons, not least of which is the belief in the sanctity of human life and the related belief in equality before the law.

There is no way to breach those two ideals without doing harm to society. They are either-or conditions: either it is true or it is not. Once it is not true for a baby, it’s not true, period: if we live in a system where arbitrary judgments can override the sanctity of human life, then we do not live in a Constitutional nation that honors rule of law; we live in a nation where the Constitution and the rule of law are honored when it is convenient for us.

Let’s face it: if you can justify killing a baby, who else are you willing to kill? Seems fair to assume you’ll justify killing anything & any one that is politically inconvenient.

While it may seem like nitpicking, nitpicks do sometimes matter. Her death was the consquence of denying her medical treatment (and yes a feeding tube is medical treatment). If she had ‘woken up’ for a moment and asserted she didn’t want to live with a feeding tube, then everything would have proceeded a it did but minus the contraversy and court cases.

There was no real question then of whether she had awareness, had lost her awareness or just had her awareness ‘on hold’. The question was only whether she had opted to decline medical treatment based on the claims that her husband had made or if she had asserted she wanted such treatment based on theh claims her parents made.

Ray, this awareness thing is a tad more slippery than one might think. The Terry Shiavo case in Fla. is one example where questions arose regarding degrees of awareness. Did she have awareness and if so how much.

You may recall that I stated above, quote, “there are difficult boundary cases”. And, further, I have stated elsewhere, specifically about the Terry Schiavo case:

Similarly, there are very tough cases where we can’t tell if awareness has ended. In general, I think that things like living wills should be respected. In cases where there’s no clear will, the wishes of the legal guardian should be respected, though I’d prefer erring on the conservative side. For example, in the highly-publicized case of Terry Schiavo, I’d say that the husband should have simply given custody over to her parents. If he was right and she’s truly brain-dead, then it couldn’t harm Terry and would make her family feel better. If he’d been wrong, there’d be a chance therapy might help. If no one was willing to assume custody, I’d say that it was up to the husband what to do.

So, anyway:

My question to you is; when you say awareness are you saying awareness of anything or do you have a particular degree of awareness that passes mustard with you.

(The phrase is “passes muster“, BTW.)

When dealing with human beings, I think – as I said above – “I’d prefer erring on the conservative side”. Self-awareness is a lot more complex – and hard-to-determine. Awareness is a little simpler, so I think it makes a more practical standard.

Even then, the standard I’m proposing is more ‘eliminative’. Only if it can be shown that no awareness is possible should we consider life ended (or not yet begun).

Also, you are aware that most of the living organisms that share our world do not have the the awareness to pass even the most rudimentary awareness test. This is true even if we grade on a curve. So by what I take to be your standard nearly everything is death worthy…

Well, I’m not a vegan or vegetarian, if that’s what you’re asking. (Are you?) Yes, we do kill all kinds of living organisms that lack awareness – I don’t avoid antibiotics when necessary, either. I’m at a loss to understand your point here.

Saying that killing non-aware living things is permissible (or maybe just not forbidden) isn’t the same thing as saying killing them is obligatory. I’m for a little killing as feasible.

What is your point? The kidney cell is a part of a human being. The zygote is a human being at that stage in human development.

The distinction you’re trying to make is exactly why the following matters:

But the brain developing is part of the process of human development. A body being kept functioning by machines is not going to develop a brain… This brain fixation pro-aborts have has no logic to it.

There may be no logic you can see, but that doesn’t mean there’s no logic to it.

And that logic really needs to be addressed. So, answer my two-pronged question from before: Would you accept a kidney transplant if your kidneys were failing? And, would you accept a brain transplant if your brain were failing?

Bonus question: Why, or why not?

So by what I take to be your standard nearly everything is death worthy but then thats not what you had in mind, it’s just the under 20 week things that live in women.

Less snarkily, the question is that this isn’t an academic debate about whether a person who got shot in the head but whose heart is pumping because of a machine is technically alive or dead. We are talking about a real woman who happens to have her own real body and that sovereignity needs to be approached with some degree of respect.

David
The priest told her to flush it down the toilet.

What I’m seeing, though, is that this is offered as a service for parents who experience a miscarriage which misses the point. Taking the argument seriously, a misscarriage should not be treated any different from any other human’s death, period.

AB,

I am always pleased to hear that the Church has become sensitive to the feelings of women who have miscarriages. Some years after it happened, my mother told me that she thought she might possibly have had a very early miscarriage. (This would have happened in the middle or late 1950s.) She called the parish priest and told him what had happened, and she asked him what she should do with the product of the potential miscarriage. I should add that my mother was medically knowledgeable, having gone through nurse’s training. If she thought she had an early miscarriage, it is quite possible that she did. The priest told her to flush it down the toilet.

I am having little success researching the topic, but I believe the sympathetic attitude of the Church toward miscarriage is a quite recent development—and a very positive one—and I am guessing that it has happened in no small part because of the pro-life movement. I would be interested if anyone could point me to Catholic services and prayers for miscarried children from the 1950s or earlier. I am looking for them and not finding them, but maybe I am not looking in the right places.

One thing I will say is that I think issues regarding pregnancy and particularly miscarriage were much more private than they are now. Very unfairly, there used to be something embarrassing about pregnancy and shameful about miscarriage. You know, don’t you, that when Lucy was expecting her baby on I Love Lucy in the early 1950s, the network would not allow the word pregnant to be said on television?

David Nickol, my experience is that most churches have prayers for miscarried babies and their parents. I absolutely cannot imagine a priest neglecting a request for spiritual assistance with this. I have never encountered this. Have you? This is a matter near and dear to me, as it was the assistance and support of my church and her priests who meant much to me in this circumstance. I found that it was the “secular” world that disregarded my pain.

Do you really believe churches think God designed human reproduction to “populate hell”? Good Lord.

Here are some links to actual churches and pro-life groups, picked at random. It takes seconds to get the scoop, you know:

http://www.saintlukemclean.org/liturgy/funerals.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/prayers/miscarriage.htm