Define what do you mean by "arbitrary". All value statements (as opposed to fact statements) are "arbitrary", since there is no absolute morality. How is "we should protect human life" not arbitrary, and "we should protect human mind" is? If you mean fuzzy by arbitrary, which I suspect, then you should know that conception is also fuzzy (it does not happen in an instant). And anyway, I dont see why it being fuzzy is a problem, laws are full of fuzzy things made exact (age of adulthood, legal alcohol drinking - dont tell me that in reality one day before 21 birthday someone is incapable of drinking responsibly, and after midnight he suddenly is). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
It is not arbitrary, in the context of abortion, because there is a definitive beginning point that everyone (well every sane person) agrees is the beginning of evry human eing's life, conception. So ALL statements are not arbitrary.
Define "arbitrariness". Also, since when is being arbitrary of any concern for legislation? I refer to abovementioned continuum fallacy and the fact that "arbitrary" laws are extremely common. Also, all this arbitrary or not does not make conception any more or less valid when it comes to morality of it (value judgements).
Look it up for cryin out loud! You want to know a definition of a word, look it up! It absolutely does in terms of consistency in the law.
The law would be most consistent when we take my approach - protecting the mind, not body. Only then would the law be consistent with medical definition of death of a person used in hospitals every day. Its inconsistent to define beginning and end of the same thing with diferrent things (beginning of a person with first living cell, and end of a person with end of the mind, not end of last living cell as would the beginning definition imply). I already pointed this out but you ignore it, as always. Arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle. As you see, "arbitrary" has no relation to what we speak about.
You are incorrect again. The development of the mind at any given specific stage of development is not consistent and using ANY specific threshold would be arbitrary, without question.
With what is it not consistent? Using ANY specific threshold would be arbitrary? So that means using conception threshold is also arbitrary? You still have not clarified what you mean by "arbitrary" btw. I dont think you mean the dictionary definition, because then your posts with that word dont make sense.
I am not aware that people are allowed to kill people who are braindead. It is illegal as far as I know. Letting nature take its course is not a homicide.
When you do home hospice the home health care providers will gve you enough liquid morphine and liquid Atavan to 86 your relative easilly, in fact, they try to make you comfortable with the idea.
Oh stop...it was hard enough to keep the nurse from overdosing him in the hospital. It doesn't matter if intentionally overdosing a relative is against the law. Nobody is gonna prosecute if the whole family agrees that one member is suffering and dieing , and the home hospice nurse gives you the drugs to do it. If a tree falls in the forest.....it's mercy in some cases
No it is not. It is illegal to kill people in coma or vegetative state. Braindead people are routinely dismantled for organs (which kills them).
Not providing urgent help while easily able to (thus causing death which could be prevented) is a homicide, even whe its "letting nature run its course". Dont have omission bias.
Many doctors will administer more than the required dosage to enable a terminally ill person to pass peacefully. It may be illegal, but it happens frequently.
Which is letting nature take its course. Can a doctor take a suction device and start dismembering that person to remove the financial burden?
The doctor can take a scalpel and start dismantling that person (actually its no longer a person by law) for transplantable organs.
Sure seems to be your implication here: http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/219064-early-term-abortion-right-wrong-22.html#post4919625
No, it certainly is not. It is not the killing of one person by another. The disease or injury actually killed them.
