Is an anacelphic baby a person?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Is an anacelphic baby a person? » Is an anacelphic baby a person?

Is an anacelphic baby a person?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Is an anacelphic baby a person?

baden511
McHamlet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 13, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 187

Posted 10/30/09 - 03:35 AM:	#51
Kant Chocula wrote: I only do this because I have a paper to write. I am avoiding it. I have been in jest the entire time I've posted. I am also quite slap-happy right about now. Paper due in two and one half hours from now. Seven pages to go. Good luck')
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Moses (Numbers 31:17-18) "Do not harm little children" - Satanic Bible. Rule no.9 "And the prize is: Eternal heavenly bliss. Or a peanut. Your choice." - The Divine Game Show Host

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2138

Posted 10/30/09 - 05:10 AM:	#52
Third, you spelled "offense" wrong (unless you're actually using British English) I suppose it's possible, the internet being accessible almost all the world over, that some people using it might actually use the English used in England or other parts of Britain. In my case, I use the English used in England up to about 1780. For example, note the ablative absolute in the first sentence.

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 200

Posted 10/30/09 - 06:19 AM:	#53
Cuthbert wrote: To Mega Therion: - "For all practical purposes it's a lump of tissue." But is the value of others a function of practical purposes? If it isn't, then the practical purposes - e.g. the abilities and faculties - of the baby are not the only relevant factor. I think it could be quite consistent to have my tooth pulled or my gangrenous leg amputated and yet think it wrong not to keep alive an anencephalic baby as long as it's possible. Firstly, it's my tooth and my leg. I couldn't consent to you pulling your tooth. The baby's life isn't mine, just as your tooth isn't mine. Secondly, there's life after necessary amputation, and it's usually a longer and better life than there would have been without amputation. There's no life after death that we can rely on for practical reasoning in this life. Personally, I'd probably let the baby die. But I don't think people who disagree entirely lack good arguments. What I meant by the phrase is that we can disregard the fact that the baby in this case is a (somewhat) complete organism; i.e. while it's strictly not the same as a leg or arm we can treat it as such in ethical discussions (ethics is usually considered practical philosophy in any case). And I don't hold a person has ethical value to the extent that it is useful to me (if I did I would advocate opening extermination camps for politicians - actually that sounds like a decent idea anyway). My point was rather that an anacephalic baby can't be considered a person in any sane sense. As for the technicality of who owns the baby, I would say the easiest solution would be to say that the parents do (just to prevent a serious misunderstanding, this is not something that I would say of a normal baby, i.e. a baby that is a person; such a baby belongs to no one). So, really the decision should be up to the parents. As for whether the opposing side has a point, as I see it they'll have a hell of a time making the idea that any organism with human DNA has value even if it's not a person work. This seems to be what they're aiming at, but how does that exclude cancer for example?

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2138

Posted 11/02/09 - 01:08 AM:	#54
To Mega Therion wrote: My point was rather that an anacephalic baby can't be considered a person in any sane sense. But that's just calling people 'mad' who think otherwise. Of course, they may be so. If the baby is not a person, then it's mad to call it so. But if it is a person, then not to call it so would be mad. So questioning the sanity of those who disagree with whatever view we ourselves hold is beside the point. So, really the decision should be up to the parents. What would be a morally justifiable decision for the parents to make? Or would any decision be justifiable? Suppose they decide to keep the baby alive. The resources required to do that are then not available for saving the lives of persons as opposed to non-persons. So they are sacrificing real persons for the sake of a non-person. (Assuming their child is a non-person). Sure the parents have the right to make the decision. But that perhaps doesn't mean that any decision they make is the right one. As for whether the opposing side has a point, as I see it they'll have a hell of a time making the idea that any organism with human DNA has value even if it's not a person work. This seems to be what they're aiming at, but how does that exclude cancer for example? Perhaps they hold that a baby is a person, even if it lacks most of its faculties, and that a tumour is not a person, even if it has human DNA. There seem to be good arguments on both sides and no knock-down argument on either.

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 200

Posted 11/02/09 - 02:47 AM:	#55
Cuthbert wrote: But that's just calling people 'mad' who think otherwise. Of course, they may be so. If the baby is not a person, then it's mad to call it so. But if it is a person, then not to call it so would be mad. So questioning the sanity of those who disagree with whatever view we ourselves hold is beside the point. I didn't call the opposing side mad; it's just that all definitions of a person I am aware of include such things as the capacoty for thought, self-awareness and so on. And it is toward persons so defined that we feel an ethical obligation. Few would consider a brain-dead body a person, for example, and that is effectively what an anacephalic baby is. Besides, it would advance the debate significantly if those who hold that an anacephalic baby is a person would present at least an outline of what they mean by a 'person'. Cuthbert wrote: Perhaps they hold that a baby is a person, even if it lacks most of its faculties, and that a tumour is not a person, even if it has human DNA. Well, on what basis, exactly? The distinction seems rather arbitrary.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2138

Posted 11/02/09 - 03:42 AM:	#56
I didn't call the opposing side mad; it's just that all definitions of a person I am aware of include such things as the capacoty for thought, self-awareness and so on. And it is toward persons so defined that we feel an ethical obligation. Few would consider a brain-dead body a person, for example, and that is effectively what an anacephalic baby is. Perhaps we do have obligations towards persons who have no capacity for thought or self-awareness. For example, even someone who thinks that the anencephalic baby should be allowed to die would baulk at its being boiled up to make glue. That is perhaps because, even lacking all faculties, its body deserves the basic respect and dignity due to personal bodies. If it weren't a person, then there would be no more objection to using its body for glue than there would be to using cancer cells for research into a cure. **** You think the distinction between a disabled baby and a tumour is arbitrary? Another view might be that the latter is fit only for cutting out and destroying. As to the former, that's the very point of debate. So the analogy would only be worth anything, if it is worth anything, once the question has been settled. Besides, it would advance the debate significantly if those who hold that an anacephalic baby is a person would present at least an outline of what they mean by a 'person'. We could debate whether a speck in the sky is a duck or an aeroplane. To settle the question we don't first need to agree what we mean by 'duck' or 'aeroplane'. We know that already. Similarly, we know what we mean by 'person'. If we did not, we could not debate whether an anencephalic baby is one or not. Conversely, someone could agree with you that an anencephalic baby is not a person. But he could also hold that it's wrong to allow it do die. He could hold, for example, that we have duties to beings other than persons and that such beings include anencephalic babies. Some people think we have ethical duties to the natural world, including tigers and pandas. And they aren't persons. Edited by Cuthbert on 11/02/09 - 03:59 AM

linear_occurance
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 10, 2009
Location: Palmer, AK, USA

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 129

Posted 11/02/09 - 11:17 AM:	#57
baden511 wrote: Thanks for the clarification. In the quote of yours I referred to, you only mentioned self-awareness (which would not necessarily exclude babies) as your definition of what 'human life' is and said you agreed with mway about his comparison with unplugging a toaster. Mway, in the quote I referred to, had said that even babies before they were toddlers could be candidates for euthanasia. I took you as agreeing with him, which was wrong as you've clarified, so in fact our positions are not as different as I thought. Then I suppose a closer examination of prior posts was due on my part, and thus the ensuing argument was due to another mistake on my behalf. For this I apologize, and will make much more of an effort to explain my arguments in the future.

baden511
McHamlet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 13, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 187

Posted 11/02/09 - 05:59 PM:	#58
Well, I'm sorry I chose the wrong target. It was really mway's comments that riled me.
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Moses (Numbers 31:17-18) "Do not harm little children" - Satanic Bible. Rule no.9 "And the prize is: Eternal heavenly bliss. Or a peanut. Your choice." - The Divine Game Show Host

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.