This Post Has No Title
Seagypsy said:
The question was posed only to demonstrate that issues like these are not simple, as I tried to clarify above.
I want to start with this because you're restating my underlying point. Some apparently find recognition of such complexity a form of jumping through hoops in order to dodge.
I agree that these are complex issues, but at the same time, my recognition of complexity is being openly rejected in this discussion. In your opinion, how should one deal with that?
But again, if that is the precedent, I can imagine an absurd fanatical attorney declaring that any abortion should require a psych evaluation. Actually, I think that argument has already been presented back in the 80's. I seem to remember, even as a little kid, hearing that a woman would not be allowed to get an abortion at any time for any reason without a psych eval and extensive counseling, which ultimately took the form of a pro life advocate wearing a lab coat inflicting guilt on the expectant mother for wanting to "hack her infant to bits with an ax"
Here we come back to certain points I raised earlier:
•
Conjoined twins: Whose body is it? What are the criteria for establishing such ownership?
•
Circumstance of condition: A conjoined twin whose survival depends on the continued life of the other is a statistical deviation, whereas the physical dependency of a blastocyst, embryo, or fetus upon the mother is not.
•
Boundaries of condition: While it is true that conjoined twins are attached, it generally does not exist
inside the body of the other twin. This condition does occur; it is called
fetus in fetu, and there is no happy outcome for the "person" existing inside the other person. A
fetus in fetu is considered alive much in the sense that my liver is alive; that is, the cells and tissues composing its corpus are not specifically dead. A 2008 paper by
Khalifa, Maximous, and Abd-Elsayed notes, "Complete excision is curative and allows confirmation of the diagnosis." In other words, the "person" within a person, the life within a life, is destroyed. But this is not the end of the consideration; as I noted earlier, "It's clear to most people that when two heads are speaking, you're listening to more than one person." In order to fulfill the hypothetical consideration proposed, the underlying question of how that works needs to be quantified and resolved. You make the point that these are not simple issues, and I certainly agree, but at least two others in this thread would appear to disagree.
There is a larger general question, then, of how to move forward with the discussion if the complexities and nuances are merely rhetorical dodges. But more specifically, where I cannot subscribe to your comparison of mental health evaluations for abortion compared to separation of conjoined twins is found in these and other differences.
I don't accept that the mere fact of attachment makes the two notions equivalent. There are more issues to resolve, but some would suggest undertaking those considerations prevarication.
Meanwhile, the underlying question starts to seem redundant. That is, as
Neverfly put it:
"If neither twin is in any danger, one twin is using the heart and one lung to survive, the rest of the body belongs to the other twin and that twin decides he doesn't want the smaller twin that has it's own brain attached anymore- removing that person would kill him, what is your ruling for that case?"
I've long argued a dry-foot policy. Indeed, I'm uncertain how many times I have to repeat myself on that point before it sinks in for some people:
You make it to the world, welcome to the world.
They've made it to the world. This, too, is a fundamental difference in my view, but I recognize it means nothing for those who respond to a question of the implications of LACP by insisting on LACP.
Frankly, I find the conjoined twins comparison rather quite stupid and desperate. In a discussion that opens by conceding LACP in order to explore the implications, the argument to establish LACP seems extraneous at the very least.
____________________
Notes:
Khalifa, Nisreen M., Doaa W. Maximous, and Alaa A. Abd-Elsayed. "Fetus in fetu: a case report". Journal of Medical Case Reports. January 10, 2008; DOI 10.1186/1752-1947-2-2. NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov. November 7, 2012. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253549/