Protection of Life Vs. Protection of the person?

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by JBeukema, Aug 30, 2009.

  1. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    So, I had a long, long, long discussion of this all typed out. However, i typed it in Windows, which promptly gave me BSoD. I'm not about to rewrite the whole damned thing, so here's the reader's digest version.

    Firstly, a question: Is it desirable for society to protect the wellbeing of its members? I am going to assume you've said 'yes', as otherwise you're not a party to any of the following discussions anyway. Is it desirable to protect the lives of society's member? That's were things get complicated. Today, we'll look at three issues and see how a very simply difference on how this question is answered seems to be the dividing factor.


    The first position holds that it is desirable for society to protect human life or the life of a human being (using the same definition laid out in earlier discussions). The second position hold that it is the self or the conscious mind that is desirable to protect. We shall examine, in brief because I'm not about to retype a damned essay, how these positions influence policy and position in regards to three matters: abortion, life support and euthanisation of the braindead, and the treatment of certain psychiatric and medical conditions.

    Firstly, we shall examine the matter of abortion. The first position is perhaps the simplest to examine and hold that it is desirable/ethical to protect a human life. Naturally, the logical implication of this position most readily apparent is that one must object to abortion in all instances at all times. If one also accepts a level of utilitarianism, one might allow exceptions when done in the interest of protecting or saving life (for instance, non-self-terminating ectopic pregnancies). Now, this begs the question of whether a child born without a head or or without a brain is to be kept alive (in the purely biological sense of the term) and, if so, why. That most persons will not take the argument to this extent seems to imply that, despite their language (calling themselves 'pro-life'), they are not truly driven by an interest in protect the life of a human, but rather are in truth arguing from another direction.

    The second position holds that it is the conscious mind, or the self ('personhood') that it to be protected. This is perhaps the most common argument form the 'pro-choice' side of the debate. This line of thought can be broken into two groups.

    The first of these positions is that only existing minds (self conscious 'personhoods') qualify for this protection. This, of course, begs the question of how to quantify, measure, or detect self-awareness. Perhaps the simplest explanation is to measure the existence of brainwaves, erring on the side of caution like a lifeguard who acts as though a drowning victim is (still) alive if there is room for doubt. This principle guides all emergency medical personnel and it seems reasonable to follow the reasoning in this instance as well.

    The latter of these argument (and the position most 'pro-life' individuals seem to actually hold when you apply he Socratic method) is that systems which are expected to result in the emergence of a self-conscious mind are also to be protected (hence the objection to abortion very early in pregnancy or even from conception). Holders of the previous position oft refer to this (evidently unaware of the falsehood of their claims and total inability to express what they seem to actually be attempting to say) as 'potential life'.

    Now, these positions translate pretty well to the matter of euthanasia and life support. If one holds that it is a human life which is to be protected, then euthanasia is abhorrent (as is all death), whereas holders of the later position(s) can easily reconcile euthanasia with their personal beliefs by seeing the braindead individual as already 'gone' as the self-conscious mind has (by all appearances) ceased to be.

    Where this gets interesting is cases where either separation of the brain hemispheres or some psychological condition results in two or more distinct 'personhoods' to exist within one 'person' or body. The later position, to be logically consistent, must call for the protection of both 'persons' and oppose any treatment that would destroy any of these 'minds' or 'selves'. That, however, is a matter to be elaborated upon at another time.
     
  2. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    What a shame you lost the "long" version.
     
  3. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,375
    Thanks Received:
    12,697
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,823
    No matter how hard you try, JB, we will never grant you "personhood" status.
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,569
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,987
    Ohh look, the poster child for the need to use of condoms has spoken.
     
  5. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,375
    Thanks Received:
    12,697
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,823
    My parents weren't allowed to practice birth control. :lol:
     
  6. John Lemmon
    Offline

    John Lemmon BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    262
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +15
    Protecting human life at all costs while eating every other sentient being is a religion based concept. So JB, you a carpet kisser or what?
     
  7. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    A pity, that
    [​IMG]
     
  8. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Of course, seeing as it all revolves around reproduction, it would make sense for the social contract to be extended to provide protections of one's bioenergetic investment even prior the the child's ability to become active in the enforcing of the contract. Indeed, this seems to be the case, as there is a precedent for charging persons with murder for killing a child in utero during an attack upon the mother.

    It makes sense, however, from the perspectiv eof personal benefit to allow one's competitors to wipe out their own progeny, which might explain why abortion is permissible in some cultures (most, in the early satges?). This also explains the general acceptence by persons ansd sociey of bith control (personal convenience + reducing genetic competition = deesirable) and fathers once facing no real legal reprecussions i they killed their own sons.

    It also explains why dueling was acceptable (let the idiots wipe themselves out) until bystanders (potentially the go) kept gettting hit by stry bullets....


    I need coffee...
     

Share This Page