Czernobog
Gold Member
- Sep 29, 2014
- 6,184
- 495
- Thread starter
- #341
None of which functions independently of the host. Sorry, none of those makes it an independent organism. At best it is a symbiotic organism, relying on its host for survival.I don't. I go off viability. When a fetus is viable, it is a separate individual. If it is not, it is a symbiotic organism relying on its host for survival. As long as that is the case, its host gets to decide what to do.
Well it's a separate individual because it has it's own DNA, heartbeat, brain activity, circulatory and nervous system, etc. And it's alive because you want to kill it. So we agree it is an organism, a human organism that is living in the state of being
Caretaker is your euphamism, not mine. I called the person what they are - a host. The answer to your question is, of course, there are circumstances at which a human being has the right to end the life of another human being. We already do. We disconnect life support from vegetative patients. We exercise capital punishment. And we have abortions.You maintain that the caretaker gets to decide what to do. Of course, we are not having an argument over what the current law allows, that's kind of stupid. The question is, should another human being have the autonomous right to end that human being's life at any stage of development an for any reason whatsoever? I don't think they should.
No, you can't. Viability is only a pre-natal measurement. It has nothing to do with pre-communicative children.Using your "viability" standard or it's ability to "beg you not to kill it" then we could easily make it legal for mothers to kill their children up to two years old or more. Granted, little kids can be a real pain in the ass... so maybe that's the standard you think we should set... if the "host" wants to do that?