I'll have to comment on this one since there's some issues I want to address.

Firstly, I think you meant braindead people, instead of comatose people. Comatose people, as far as I'm aware, still very much have brain function, which is why they can actually come out of said coma. Although I have heard of irreversible coma, I do not think that's the most common kind – and regardless, you'd need to qualify it. If you did indeed mean braindead people, then I'd have to say that beyond a purely emotional appeal, there's really no rational reason to keep the body around as if it's still a human being. If I were in that situation, I would prefer that any organs that may be used to help others be salvaged while they are still healthy – I wouldn't want them to keep the bag of blood and bones alive for no reason.

By the way, I do indeed agree that sentience is a requirement for personhood. I would even stretch it to non-human persons as well, such as the other Great Apes and perhaps certain cetaceans. Following from this, your sickle-cell anemia victims are by no means ripe for the axe – their reliance on the help of others is not really relevant to whether or not they're persons. Fetuses already don't fall into that group due to lack of a functioning brain at that point anyway.

Next, you say this :

One may be compelled to ask how exactly scientists determine who is or is not a member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It’s a rather simple test: if you have 23 pairs of unique chromosomes we call “human chromosomes”, then you are a member of our species.

This is a horrible idea, since this would mean that people with Down Syndrome are not human. Seriously, rethink this one.

Next you say :

Ask yourself then; what is the difference between someone who has 1,000 human cells, and someone who has 1? 1,000,000? 10,000,000? If you cannot tell me a fixed point at which the number of cells becomes relevant, then are you not completely arbitrarily saying that I have got it wrong?

The number of cells most definitly counts, as does what the cells are. You shed cells all the time, and you hardly cry about those poor things. Similarly we do not cry over the sperm or egg cells that are spilled regularly, or even those fertilized eggs that are expelled in the first month. Beyond emotional appeal, there's also no reason to do this for fetuses until they're quite a ways along – up to a point, the number of cells does not yet include any that would be called in any sense a brain capable of sensing anything. Although an absolute cellcount is probably pretty tough to figure out (and might vary depending on the pregnancy) there's quite a lot of values we definitely know do not amount to a thinking being.

Next you say :

Surely it is a mother’s fault for a condom breaking, her being drunk, or her getting raped.

Wait, what? I think you might want to get back to this one since currently it looks rather bad.

I have to make my own objections though. If a sickle cell anemic surgically attached themselves to my body for nine months, putting me at some risk of harm, I would remove them, even if it were to save my own life. If both of us were going to die, I don't know, I will have to think about that. However, I stand by my point. I would rather be killed than kill.

I would rather be a victim than a criminal.

>>>>I'll have to comment on this one since there's some issues I want to address.

Firstly, I think you meant braindead people, instead of comatose people. Comatose people, as far as I'm aware, still very much have brain function, which is why they can actually come out of said coma. Although I have heard of irreversible coma, I do not think that's the most common kind – and regardless, you'd need to qualify it. If you did indeed mean braindead people, then I'd have to say that beyond a purely emotional appeal, there's really no rational reason to keep the body around as if it's still a human being. If I were in that situation, I would prefer that any organs that may be used to help others be salvaged while they are still healthy – I wouldn't want them to keep the bag of blood and bones alive for no reason.<<<

The reason I didn't use “persistent vegetative state” or “permanent vegetative state” is that usually nobody knows what those terms mean. Likewise none of those terms are synonymous with brain dead people (who never actually wake up). The point of the analogy is you don't actually know when permanent vegetables will wake up, if ever, yet people still maintain them, whereas with zygotes, you know with almost exact precision when it is that they'll wake up (become conscious and functional). Hence if you have a problem with killing vegetables you should have a HUGE problem with killing zygotes.

>>>>>By the way, I do indeed agree that sentience is a requirement for personhood. I would even stretch it to non-human persons as well, such as the other Great Apes and perhaps certain cetaceans. Following from this, your sickle-cell anemia victims are by no means ripe for the axe – their reliance on the help of others is not really relevant to whether or not they're persons. Fetuses already don't fall into that group due to lack of a functioning brain at that point anyway.<<<<

Fetuses don't work since they have some neural functions. We're talking about zygotes, who don't have any sort of brain at all. You forward that sentience is a requirement, but again vegetables are not sentient, hence I should be allowed to stab them in the face since they are merely a pile of decaying organic matter, or have sex with them. Though you might argue that the dead body is the property of the family. If this is true it follows that I should be able to buy the dead body and then have sex with it.

: >>>>One may be compelled to ask how exactly scientists determine who is or is not a member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It’s a rather simple test: if you have 23 pairs of unique chromosomes we call “human chromosomes”, then you are a member of our species.

This is a horrible idea, since this would mean that people with Down Syndrome are not human. Seriously, rethink this one.<<<<

A common criticism, see reference 4 for why this doesn't apply (as well as other disorders wherein you have females with four x chromosomes)

>>>>Ask yourself then; what is the difference between someone who has 1,000 human cells, and someone who has 1? 1,000,000? 10,000,000? If you cannot tell me a fixed point at which the number of cells becomes relevant, then are you not completely arbitrarily saying that I have got it wrong?

The number of cells most definitly counts, as does what the cells are. You shed cells all the time, and you hardly cry about those poor things. Similarly we do not cry over the sperm or egg cells that are spilled regularly, or even those fertilized eggs that are expelled in the first month. Beyond emotional appeal, there's also no reason to do this for fetuses until they're quite a ways along – up to a point, the number of cells does not yet include any that would be called in any sense a brain capable of sensing anything. Although an absolute cellcount is probably pretty tough to figure out (and might vary depending on the pregnancy) there's quite a lot of values we definitely know do not amount to a thinking being. <<<<

And nobody said it matters that a being think. In fact, the scientific definition of a human being does not entail that he think, it only entails that he be in a stage of development of human life (which means zygotes are by default humans, just as six year olds are). However, again, if you wish to add sentience to personhood, then you are already wrong, since most people would not be willing to stab vegetables to death.

>>>>Surely it is a mother’s fault for a condom breaking, her being drunk, or her getting raped.

Wait, what? I think you might want to get back to this one since currently it looks rather bad.<<<<

Sarcasm bro.

I heard cool stuff happens if I use the comment section. SO here goes.

q. “Are there any members of your species which you exclude the trait of personhood from?” a. The dead.

“Likewise there are people who don’t consider the comatose to be human or in-grown parasitic Siamese twins [1] to be among many others. How do they make these distinctions? Are their essential parts to humans which all these people are lacking?”

potential intellectual and physical autonomy from other humans, even if intermittently.

“If you consider this essential part to be sentience, then it follows that comatose people are not human beings; they are merely lumps of organic matter. I would then ask you if you would be willing to use your son or your sibling, were they comatose, to cultivate your garden, or perhaps as nutritious chicken-feed.”

Scatter ashes wherever you wish, Terri Schiavo is in your water supply.

>>>I was upholding your point with the personhood discussion. It wasn't a critique, but I'm going to make it into one, now that you've rebelled against it so strongly.<<<

I never made the point that non humans could be people, in fact I very specifically banned them from being people in my definition, for the reason that they are not people.

>>>>What is so special about humans that they should have rights? Is it their chromosomes? Their genetic code? Their sentience? As I think you believe, it is their personhood which merits their rights. Likewise, I think 'human rights' is a misnomer, at least in part. They should be called personal rights, since they belong to people, and not necessarily organisms with identical genetic makeup to our own. <<<<

Persons=Human beings. If you no any non-human persons, point me to one, since those to me are round squares.

>>>>Don't you believe “human rights” should be extended to the next species to evolve from humans? What if they're people too?<<<<

They aren't, because that's not the definition of “person”

>>>>And I really don't think you're thinking very rationally when you talk about sickle cell anemics surgically attached to you. There's a difference between killing someone and just letting them die. If they find themselves attached to you, then I think you have a moral responsibility to keep them on board until they're okay. Once they're attached to you, the choice goes from neutral v. nice to murder v. selflessness. When I say I'd rather be a victim than a criminal, I really did mean it. I'd rather not be a criminal, which is what I would be if I decided to abandon a helpless anemic person depending on me for their survival.<<<<

Again, it isn't murder, it's called “justifiable homicide”. I'm allowed to report a person if they suddenly decide to start taking food from my refrigerator after I let them do it for one day. Especially if they keep doing it for nine months. If it is the case that the police fail to remove this person, they can use LETHAL FORCE to dispatch him. I do not need to provide any of the nutrients of my body to anyone, ever, under any circumstances. Choosing not to NEVER makes me a bad person. If you think it does, then a MILLION extremely bad things follow from this. I'd suggest you read “the singer solution to world poverty” for more on this.

>>>>And I don't think you're analogy to anemics is even compelling. Sure, pregnancy and childbirth do carry some risks, but they are nowhere near the risks associated with a sickle cell anemic stealing your blood all the time for 9 months, and last time I checked, women very rarely die in childbirth these days, especially in America. While this point doesn't create a logical, black-white sort of distinction between pregnancy and parasitism, it does separate them enough to remove most of the credibility from your argument. For the majority of cases in the West, pregnancy is relatively harmless, and the mother cannot justify abortion by pretending she is refusing to unreasonably offer herself to some kind of parasite. That is simply not the case. <<<<

You must be confused. Read above again. Even if the risk of dying from pregnancy is extremely minimal, I need not offer my nutrients to anyone for any reason. I am not obligated to provide nutrients to anyone for any reason. The reason being I have better things to do. If it is the case that I am pregnant, for example, and desire to go to the ISS to do experiments on zero gravity proton therapy, I should be allowed to kill the zygote inside of me (which is a parasite, by the way, whether you like the label or not) in order to do so. Killing the zygote does not make me evil in any way, nor does it make me a less respectable person. See socrates on the presumption that death is negative.

>>>>Refusing to unreasonably offer your body to a fetus would be more like refusing to have sex in the first place, not abandoning the child when it is already dependent on you. (rape, broken condoms, etc are another question entirely)<<<<

The example is of a woman who CONSENTED to have sex because she WANTED a child. Read the analogy again. I AGREE to have the sickle cell anemic attached to me, then I choose NOT to have him attached after hearing of the consequences. If you think a woman should be aware of the consequences, that's fine, (although rather strange to expect given their is an entire field of science devoted to the effects of pregnancy on activity), however, even if the woman knew all the consequences, she could STILL kill the zygote in order to engage in activities which she now wants to engage in, like in the ISS example.

I really must apologize for calling you a Randist pig, now that I read it for myself.

It must be insulting to Rand.

Also, should we consider the statistics? At what rate do women die from complications with pregnancy? Should we also be allowed to line up bad drivers and shoot them “in self-defense” since they are clearly threats to the lives of others on the road.

Yeah, I brought this up, he doesn't seem to think that's relevant.

Also something very important should be clarified here.

This paper is on the legal right to commit abortion, although I am also explaining why usually abortion is also ethically justified. There are cases in which abortion is not ethically justified. For example if a woman decides to kill her fetus because killing fetuses is her idea of fun, this is not ethically justified. However, this says nothing about it's legality. (It is legal, for example, to smoke ciggarettes, but most ethicists consider smoking unethical.)

>>>>You've made quite a few errors here. You talk about killing a zygote because you want to go into space. The zygote stage lasts approximately four days. It occurs before the person (to use your terminology) implants itself in the uterus and becomes a blastocyst/embryo. You can't abort a zygote, and four days is a pretty short amount of time to decide to go into space. <<<<

This is quite right, the embryo would be what we're talking about in such a case. I usually like to use the term zygote so as to refer to contraception and extremely early pregnancy, since typically within a gestational age of 5 weeks you get neural signs. So when I say zygote, people usually get an image of a cell, or several cells. Whereas when I say embryo people might think “beating heart” or “developing nerves”

>>>>You also bring up the non-differences between a fetus of nine months and a baby of nine months when talking about abortion. Full-term fetuses are not aborted; occasionally doctors may be forced to allow them to die due to medical complications, but this is not the same thing as elective abortion. Nine-month old fetuses can survive outside of the mother's body; zygotes cannot. That's why I can go to CVS and get a morning-after pill to prevent a potential zygote from developing into an embryo, and I can abort a fetus during the first two trimesters, but I cannot abort a nine-month old fetus days before I am scheduled to give birth.<<<<

This is also correct, since late term abortions typically do not occur within the third trimester (though it's easily possible to have one during the third trimester). Again the point was to demonstrate that there are not really that many differences between a fetus and a newborn, hence the uselessness of the “viability” point.

>>>>There has to be a compromise between the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus, and I think that this is a fairly good one. Your argument that we are allowed to kill people because they depend on us for nutrients is a little nutty.<<<<

You think we should be legally obligated to donate blood to people after we agree to do so the first time?

>>>>Your comparison of a fetus to a sickle-cell anemic who attaches himself to you is completely ridiculous and divorced from any sort of reality.<<<<

A^B, where A is appeal to ridicule and B is bare assertion.

I don't know what you expect me to do with A^B. Should I assume they are true despite their fallaciousness?

>>>> If you can't make an argument on its own merits, maybe you should think a little harder about the issue instead of resorting to strained analogies.<<<<

Maybe you could help me by showing me what part of “Giving your nutrients to a person for nine months” doesn't coincide with “giving your nutrients to a person for nine months”.

“The argument doesn't follow Einstein.”

“What do you mean?”

“Cars don't increase in mass as they accelerate”

“But I just showed you why they do.”

“No, they don't. That's crazy.”

“But you haven't explained why it's crazy? What's crazy about my demonstration?”

“The conclusion.”

“But all of the things that I've shown make the conclusion necessary”

“But it's also necessarily crazy”

“Nuh UH”

“YAH UH”

“NAH UH”

Etc.

>>>>”While you may think you have the right of refusal to OFFER yourself to anyone for any reason, you do not have the right to withhold yourself from them at their mortal peril, ONCE THEY ARE ALREADY dependent on you for their life. That is called “negligent homicide”, and is somewhat comparable to starving a newborn child to death by refusing to feed it.”<<<<

My conclusion is the EXACT opposite of that. Where in fact you DO have the right to withhold yourself. And again, no that is not negligent homicide. If that WERE negligent homicide it would mean it's illegal for someone to kill a sickle cell anemic by withholding blood from them after they are dependent. OBVIOUSLY that isn't illegal. In the same way it isn't illegal to withhold nutrients from a fetus either, mostly because they are parasites. The reason it's called negligence after the baby is born is because you have the option to remove the baby from your care (IE put him up for adoption or cede parental rights), whereas in the case of the fetus you have no choice but to kill him, otherwise he will continue to suck your nutrients for life.

>>>You my choose whether or not to extend your arm to hold up a drowning victim, as someone else could simply grab onto him instead. However, you do not have the right to drop him into the water once you have offered him your hand. Answer only this question: Do you have the right to drop a man into the water, knowing it will kill him? It doesn't matter what led up to the situation, as I've already demonstrated, so please tell me whether you think you can simply drown people simply because it suits you.<<<<

I absolutely have the right to drop him into the water. If you think that is negligent homicide then you need to google “negligent homicide” and learn what it actually means. I do not need to stay at a dock for 2 months holding somebody up. I have to go to school, as well as eat food so as to avoid starvation.

>>>>There is a very distinct limit on your rights, and what you are allowed and forbidden to do. An anemic person's right to live compromises your right to private property, such as your nutrients, resulting in a responsibility on your part to provide as much help as you can to them without endangering your own life. This may or may not be the case with a fetus, but I am not going to make any arguments about that. The simple fact of the matter is that there is much more to an anemic person than your simplistic ideas about “parasitism” and the consumption of nutrients. Likewise, there is more to be said about a fetus than these unrealistic reductions you make.<<<<

“There's more to be said here”

“Like what?”

“I dunno, but this is oversimplified”

“Can you actually make an argument instead of just saying 'this is oversimplified'?”

“No.”

>>>>You have not offered a single argument that advances your conclusion at all, you have simply articulated a number of unrealistically reductive analogies and craftily snuck in the unsupported assertion that you have the inviolable right to do whatever you want with your own self, regardless of the consequences for others. There is no evidence to support this idea in either your article or your many spastic comments.<<<<

What are you talking about? I obviously have the right to my own nutrients. From this it follows that if someone is taking my nutrients by force I have the right to eliminate them (see self defense).

Your whole objection seems to be “but you don't have the right if you are consenting to their taking your nutrients”. However, this is obvious. The problem is when we DO NOT CONSENT to them taking our nutrients. You on the other hand are saying “once you consent, you cannot opt out”, but this is ridiculous. Merely because I agree to provide you with my blood for a bit does not now bind me to provide you with blood for as long as you live.

>>>>Your demonstrations are arguably less valid than the conclusion they come to. Like I said, many of us here support a woman's right to choose an abortion, so you can't complain that we're simply contradicting your conclusion. Again, you are crazy. You are an irrational human being, and your arguments are unrealistic.<<<<

You are contradicting my conclusion, by saying “A person does not have the right to their own nutrients if it is the case that the nutrients at one point were consented to be taken by said party”.

Again, this is an extremely weird thing to disagree with, and likewise it doesn't fit the definition of negligent homicide which refers to criminal negligence as well, which is: careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant.

None of the examples you gave, such as refusing to holding a person up on a dock for two months, refusing to give a sickle cell anemic any more of your blood, or refusing to give a fetus your nutrients, fit the definition of “inattentive, willfully blind, careless” etc. All of the parties are paying full attention to the party which they are killing, and their homicide is completely justified by the fact that the party killed is infringing on their rights.

“What are you talking about? I obviously have the right to my own nutrients. From this it follows that if someone is taking my nutrients by force I have the right to eliminate them.”

Good. This is what I was baiting you to say. This is the problem with your whole argument.

It does NOT follow that you have the right to eliminate them. Your right to property not as important as an anemic person's right to life, and so the anemic person's right to life takes precedence. This justifies their stealing, and NOT your homicide.

See, in this situation, of an anemic person having attached themselves to you to take your nutrients, you and I have discussed two options:

1.) They continue to take your nutrients by force to save their life (theft),

or 2.) You eliminate them to preserve your property (murder).

Because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person, you are not entitled to your property any longer, and “your” nutrients become theirs. It simply becomes a case of the anemic man claiming what rightfully belongs to him: his life.

>>>>Good. This is what I was baiting you to say. This is the problem with your whole argument.<<<<

Dude, I said that days ago. You responded with “this is crazy” and I responded with “belief in cars increasing in mass is crazy, therefore einstein is wrong.

>>>>It does NOT follow that you have the right to eliminate them. Your right to property not as important as an anemic person's right to life, and so the anemic person's right to life takes precedence. This justifies their stealing, and NOT your homicide.<<<<

You seem to be confused, the law definitely does not agree with you, and is absolutely comfortable with you killing said anemic. This happens all the time.

>>>>See, in this situation, of an anemic person having attached themselves to you to take your nutrients, you and I have discussed two options:

1.) They continue to take your nutrients by force to save their life (theft),<<<

No, forced assault.

>>>2.) You eliminate them to preserve your property (murder).<<<

No, justifiable homicide. Even if it WAS theft (which it isn't, it's assault), then I could still shoot them. (see self-defense laws again)

>>>>Because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person, you are not entitled to your property any longer, and “your” nutrients become theirs. It simply becomes a case of the anemic man claiming what rightfully belongs to him: his life.<<<<

Yeah, so if I hook myself up to someone in their sleep, they MUST keep me there, lest I die.

Sorry, doesn't fly in any courtroom.

Likewise, morally speaking, you've offered no argument for this. Because if we grant this, then we should also be giving all of our left over funds to charity, since starving people need it.

Though you might say “wait a minute, although they depend on us for their existence, they aren't attached to us surgically, therefore we need not provide for them” but this is just random and arbitrary.

Bitch, it's not like this fetus be holdin' no gun to yo head.

So one day I donate one of my kidneys to you. Years later, I wake up and realize that I don't want my kidney prolonging your life of crazy. Is it okay for me to drug you, take back my kidney, and leave you to die in bathtub full of ice? What if I went back in time with my DeLorean and never gave you my kidney to begin with? What if I went to the future, got you a synthetic kidney, and then ripped it out of you at a later date? What if I try to clean up an oil spill with napkins because it works on juice, and dismiss all criticism by repeating the juice story, because what is true for juice must be true for all liquids? What if all difficult questions could be answered by the false logic of easy analogies?

You try to prove abortion is justifiable murder by comparing it to other cases of justifiable murder. But the two examples you mention – the surgically-attached sickle-cell anemic and the drowning man who spends two months holding on to your hand – are clear-cut matters of life and death. For the vast majority of women, pregnancy is risky but far from fatal. Late-term abortions should be allowed for those cases, yes, because it is actually a matter of defending your life. Killing viable human beings for the asinine reason of “not wanting to share your nutrients” is just stupid. You share resources everyday. Your bizarre comparisons have nothing to do with the complicated issue of abortion, and the conclusions you take from them don't prove anything about abortion because these things are not the same.

I will mention again that the essay never states that it has anything to do with ethics, it is about legality. “Most people would say” is relevant since this is a democratic republic.

I will also mention that I do not understand the difference with the inevitability of the threat of death in the case of pregnancy and the inevitability of the threat of death in the case of a bank robbery. The hemorrhage, for example, can be compared to the gun shot wound from the assault rifle. There is a possibility you will be shot in the bank, just as there is a possibility you will hemorrhage in the case of the fetus. It should be noted that neither a gunshot nor a hemorrhage necessitate death, but they certainly make it more apparently likely. Both are very real threats. The only difference that I can see between these threats is that in one case the criminal intends to kill, whereas in the other the culprit has no idea of the threat he poses.

You also continue to mention slippery slopes, but I am confused at how one could make a valid slippery slope objection here, since it is always the case that the mother has the right to commit homicide regardless of this (this is just one particular reason she may want to).

I don't understand how someone so efficient at explaining aristotilean concepts like hylomorphism can expend so much text writing absolutely nothing.

“I disagree that you have the right to protect your nutrients lethally”

“I know that, I'm asking why”

“I dunno, I just take it as basic and will stick by it.”

“But the legal system doesn't agree with you, how will you convince them without argument?”

“Worked for Charles Finney, it'll work for me.”

Did you forget that the fetus here is committing assault? Not Theft?

You do know if I bite you in the neck and start sucking your blood that's not “property theft” right?