Retired Cop Waves White Flag in War on Drugs

The Standard-Times (MA) ^ | 15 Jan 2003 | John Doherty

[MrLeRoy]

if those bodies, or parts of bodies, have no right to life, why does a collection of cells that ALSO has no brain, have a "right to life?"

Because it has the potential to have a reasoning free-willed brain.

[MrLeRoy]

... as I already explained at length in post #308.

[Mark Bahner]

"Because it has the potential to have a reasoning free-willed brain."

OK, does an anencephalitic fetus have a "right to life?" That is, a right to be born (since they are guaranteed to die, within, at most, a few days)?

http://www.mit.edu/afs/net.mit.edu/project/attic/usa-today/news/43

[MrLeRoy]

does an anencephalitic fetus have a "right to life?"

No.

[Mark Bahner]

I wrote, "Does an anencephalitic fetus have a "right to life?"

Mr. LeRoy responded, "No."

Hmmmm. This is presumably because there is no "potential for reasoning free-willed individuality."

But why have the government involved in protecting a group of cells that merely have the "potential" to form a brain? Why not only get the government involved when a brain truly exists?

[MrLeRoy]

Explained at length in post #308.

[Mark Bahner]

"Explained at length in post #308."

One paragraph...filled with logical inconsistencies.

You say only humans have the "potential" for "reasoning free-willed individuality."

And you later agreed that anencephalic fetuses have no right to be born. (Presumably because they have no potential for "reasoning free-willed individuality.")

But there are PLENTY of animals (chimps, parakeets, dogs, dolphins) that are far more "reasoning free-willed individuals," than various human beings who have extremely damaged brains.

So your criteria for what deserves the "right to life" is essentially "whatever Mr. LeRoy says."

In contrast, *my* suggested guidelines are far more consistent (although they are "specie-ist"):

1) Nothing without any brain has a right to life,

2) Entities that have a human brain, no matter how poorly functioning, have a right to life. HOWEVER,

3) Those entities also have a "right to die." And,

4) If those entities are in another entity's body, the host entity also has rights. (Including the right to abort the entity, if that entity was conceived through involuntary sexual intercourse.) Finally,

5) In most cases, the woman who is the host entity is likely to be the best judge of what is best for the entity inside her.

Summary: I still don't see the point in having the government involved in protecting something that has the POTENTIAL to have a brain. When that something actually HAS a brain, then I can at least see the potential wisdom of having the government involved.

[MrLeRoy]

filled with logical inconsistencies.

False.

But there are PLENTY of animals (chimps, parakeets, dogs, dolphins) that are far more "reasoning free-willed individuals," than various human beings who have extremely damaged brains.

They are neither reasoning free-willed individuals nor members of species for which that state is the norm. No inconsistency there.