Omission bias. The inaction of the person refusing to provide help is equally responsible, according to consequentialist principle.
Yes. Your point? Are you implying killing a person is OK if it helps another? Would it be OK to kill one man to provide organs for five to live?
If that man was declared clinically dead, yes. This is in no way similar to a human being developing naturally before a certain stage though. Is a developing fetus clinically dead?
Yes, the fetus is braindead until 20th week, just like the braindead people after accidents. Thats why killing a braindead but biologically alive human after accident is OK, and thats why killing a braindead but biologically alive fetus is OK.
Actually this is an incorrect statement. a Fetus IS NOT clinically dead just because he/she is in an early stage of development. Again, apples and oranges.
Brain death is what is important in 21st century. Clinical death is used only when brain death (brain state diagnosis) is unobtainable, for example due to equipment constraints. And it always has to be confirmed by brain diagnosis afterwards, if possible.
Nope! That is NOT what is important. It is what YOU WANT to be important. ANother distinction you seem to miss. So does the medical chart say "brain dead" or "clinically dead"?
The medical chart says that there should be no brain wave activity in the brain for at least 48 hours for legal death to be proclaimed. Brain death is the legal death now. There are people who survived clinical death you know? Thats why its no longer used as a definitive death. I am sure you have read those stories about people seeing the white light etc..
Ok well where does brain death's definition say that it includes fetuses who have not yet reached a certain level of development?
Fetus before 20 weeks have no brain wave activity for far longer. It does not even have a brain in the embryonal stage.
I don't see where the definition includes a fetus who has not yet developed to a certain point. In order to declare someone brain dead, it stands to reason that they would have to have been brain alive first!
Why? By your logic, a stone on the road has never been brain alive first, so it cannot be declared brain dead, so it is a person which should be protected.
A fetus in the first and second trimesters has no cerebral cortex...this is why Roe V Wade passed. The vast majority of doctors who testified, pointed out the fact that a fetus without a cerebral cortex is incapable of sensing pain, emotions, or laying down memories. Which makes a pre cerebral cortex baby no more deserving of human rights than my liver is by itself. If you take out all the religious inspired drama, your left wth that fact, and thats why the SCOTUS, being objective, ruled the way it did. You can try to replace the drama, but the first and second trimester fetuses are not "suffering" in any way. The people who will suffer...are the mothers of unwanted babies, and the unwanted babies. Half of the people against abortion are male, and because this doesn't impact them, they should have no say in it. The people who have opinions on this matter who are relevant...are the people who would be willing to raise these unwanted babies, God, and nobody else.
WOw just as you want to decide which babies live wnd which ones die, you want to deem some people relevant and others not. Wow you tyrants are all the same. The fact remains, a fetus isn't brain dead when it is developing normally.
Of course it's not brain dead...brain death refers to people who will never be "brain alive". But that doesn't matter....if a fetus never feels sensations, emotions, or lays down memories....it is not experiencing "life", in a sense that is the same for the brain dead, or the vegitative. If a fetus has not yet reached "life", which neccessitates perception of sensation, emotion, or memories, or a living person will never again precieve sensation, emotion, or memories....they do not deserve rights that supercede the mother for fetuses, or a caretaker for the brain dead. That whole "tyrants" thing, and "deciding who lives or dies" is just an example of you trying to put the drama back into it all, like I pointed out earlier
How is the fetus different from a brain dead human in the relenvant parameter for brain death - presence of the functioning brain?
Well nonetheless, I have decimated your silly little "brain dead" refers to fetuses in early developmental stages nonsense.
I never asserted that argument....you're confusing me with somebody else. I stated that it doesn't matter who's brain dead. Because nobody dissagrees with aborting brain dead fetuses.
