Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Legal Death, Legal Life
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 23 of 40 (454326)
02-06-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-16-2008 10:14 PM


Re: Purpose #1: define human life
I know you've already moved on, but I just read this now, sorry.
I like the idea of describing when life begins by using the reciprocal of the definition of death.
I think there's a problem, though, but it may just be a nitpick.
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustained either
(1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or
(2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead.
A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF LIFE
1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who has sustained either:
(1) irreversible instigation of circulatory and respiratory functions, and
(2) irreversible instigation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
My problem is with the use of the term "irreversible" in both definitions. I don't think it should be in the determination of life. With death it makes sense, since at any time if a person is "alive" again, the death wasn't really death, but maybe some sort of stasis or whatever.
Irreversible cessation implys they aren't coming back to life.
But it doesn't make sense with the determination of life. All life is always reversible. From a still-born baby to an old man who dies in his sleep. Sort of how you switched "or" and "all" to "and" and "any", I think irreversible needs to be replaced with something that signifies how life is present only while those features are present.
Irreversible instigation implys they aren't losing the status of life. Which is, well, obviously flawed.
I'd recommend changing the words "irreversible instigation" to simply "existence" to have:
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF LIFE
1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who has sustained both:
(1) existence of circulatory and respiratory functions, and
(2) existence of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
This does, however, leave any time when a person is in a state of 'stasis' (dead, but comes back to life eventually) in which they are undefined.
But I like that issue better than saying life is irreversible.
Edited by Stile, : Fixing formatting
Edited by Stile, : More format errors because I'm not so bright

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-16-2008 10:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2008 4:07 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 25 of 40 (454357)
02-06-2008 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
02-06-2008 4:07 PM


Sounds good to me
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF (human) LIFE (rev 1):
1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who experiences both:
(1) the continued operation of circulatory and respiratory functions, and
(2) the continued operation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
RAZD writes:
How does that work for you?
Sounds good. Definitely removed my issue, anyway.
Personally, I like the idea of a gray area between life and death, when no hard and fast definition can call it one way or the other, but where there are two "Rubicons" to cross to set the issue to rest, one into (human) life and one into (no longer human) death.
Again, I agree. I like that area of "has it been too long for them to be brought back?" I especially like the idea that this amount of time is unknown, and hopefully we can continue to develop ways in which to increase it.
I'm not sure if it's relevent or not, but the definition of Death also implys that Life was "on" at some point. That is, it's not so much a strict opposite sense as it is a one-thing-follows-the-other-eventually type deal. Although this point probably blends in with your point that we're talking distinctly about human life, in which case, I think this must be implicitly understood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2008 4:07 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 32 of 40 (827742)
01-31-2018 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Pressie
01-31-2018 7:06 AM


Re: waiting for new member approval ...
Pressie writes:
She regrets the abortion, but realizes that it was to her best interest. Was she wrong or right to have the abortion?
Nobody knows. There's not enough information available to tell.
Some of the information is completely impossible to find out.
That's why it's such a tough decision... if it were easy to know, it wouldn't be difficult.
Some ideas to flesh out the point I'm making:
-If a non-abortion had of resulted in a more-painful death (or life) of the fetus/baby anyway... then the abortion was a good thing for the baby
-If a non-abortion had of resulted in a good/wonderful life of the fetus/baby... then the abortion was a bad thing for the baby
-If the abortion resulted in her life having the ability to make other people's lives happy/better (possibly even other children-of-hers) in a way she would not be able to if she had the abortion... then the abortion was a good thing for these other people (and possibly her other children)
-If the abortion resulted in her life not having the ability to make other people's lives happy/better... then the abortion was a bad thing for those other people.
-If the abortion allowed her life to be happier/better... then the abortion was a good thing for her
-If the abortion led to her life being worse... then the abortion was a bad thing for her
...
This list is not exhaustive. I'm sure there are plenty of other effects that could be listed, I'm just showing how complicated the "was it good or bad?" question is.
On top of all those possibilities... it needs to be understood that each item can quite possibly be independent from the others.
That is, it could be that the abortion was good for the baby (would have died worse anyway)... but bad for her (her life turned out worse because of the abortion). Or any other combination... maybe good for her, and good for others around her, and good for her future children (who might not exist without the abortion occurring)... but bad for the aborted fetus/baby. How do you weigh those against each other? How can you do it when all the "future possibilities" can't possibly be known at the time when the decision has to be made??
Such weighing is required to know if the abortion "is good or bad."
But such weighing is impossible at the time the decision must be made... because it all happens in the future. Some of the important results may not be known until decades into the future.
I hope this is enough to show that a single, easy answer for "Was she wrong or right to have the abortion?" is simply not available.
It's one of those super-hard decisions where we just have to do whatever we think is best based upon the information (and whatever future-prediction-abilities we have) at the time.
THAT's why I think the decision is up to the woman-in-question, and no one else.
She is free to search out information from any and all sources (family? friends? anywhere?) but... even THAT is up to her.
We can all judge her as much as we'd like.
But, to me, I think anyone judging harshly on someone making such a decision (forced into it or not) speaks a hell of a lot more about the character of that judgey-person than it does about the woman-in-question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Pressie, posted 01-31-2018 7:06 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 33 of 40 (827743)
01-31-2018 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
01-30-2018 10:49 AM


Re: waiting for new member approval ...
RAZD writes:
Apparently the person who posted what is quoted in Message 28 on facebook has applied for membership here but has not been confirmed.
Oh really?
Did Percy implement such a thing?
Maybe.
Or maybe you're getting the run-around...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2018 10:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2018 10:35 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024