it’s the determinant again for someone in a vegetative state. The root of this conversation began with your assertion that it’s permissible to end human lives if they are disabled. It would seem your definition of personhood is intentionally exclusive of those populations which
I get confused in these discussions with people who argue that consciousness itself is the thing that should give rights, but then *only* to humans for some reason
-
-
Yeah. Here the question is, is consciousness sufficient for personhood (which is related to, but not the same as, rights-holding). But I do think animals have rights.
-
I'm not being very clear, sorry. I think I should say: an organism that has never achieved consciousness is not a candidate for personhood. So rather than sufficient, it's a necessary condition. In tandem with membership in the human species, it may be sufficient.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.