[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I don't consider the fetus (or a lower level tard, for that matter) to be human.


[/ QUOTE ]

Phil, This has been on my mind for a few days.

I wouldn't say nescesarily that you are the best poster on SMP, but IMHO I would put you in the top 1. As a result I was reluctant to steam in, but, after some thought, I would very much appreciate it if you would clarify what you mean here.

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, creatures without self awareness, social awareness or a meaningful capacity to feel, are just blobs of cells, no different to a cell culture in a petri dish.

An egg isn't a person. A sperm isn't a person. An egg + sperm isn't a person. 10 cells isn't a person. An arm isn't a person, nor is a torso or a liver. Humanness is defined by the ability, however small, to feel and think and be aware of that. Animals such as cattle and dogs that can feel and think (but not be aware) are worth more than some of the lesser tards we keep alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is a person in a coma such that they have no capacity to feel, self-awareness, etc... a person? What if this condition has a chance of recovery? How big must the chance be for someone in this condition to be a "person" by your definition? Is your definition about someone's present state of being? Capacity? Future capacity? Demonstration of past capacity and memories? What of Resucsitation, generally?



My point: The definition of life evolves as per medical science. Clearly the trend is that life is becoming MORE sustainable. If this were the only trend involved, it would be inevitable that the definition of life would move inexorably towards conception. However, counterbalancing against this is the societal cost of valuing life to extreme degrees.