Yes, if a human is dead that's not a person. We could imagine this not being so. In fact it's a common idea in supernatural fiction, and of course it's a crucial idea in some religions - but in our universe when humans are dead they cease to be people.

Is it possible to get it wrong? Sure. Over history we've got this wrong lots of times, and as you showed the most dramatic examples make news. I don't see how the fact that people are capable of error justifies a pretence that newborns are people.

Those diagnoses aren't wrong, the patients' bodies spontaneously healed themselves. You didn't address my other cases.

> I don't see how the fact that people are capable of error justifies a pretense that newborns are people.

Well, you're the one proposing this radical idea that newborns aren't people (and suggesting, I believe, that it's okay to kill them because they're "not people"); you justify it.

At what age or stage of development do newborns turn from not-people to people? We can't check with you on a case-by-case basis.

> Those diagnoses aren't wrong, the patients' bodies spontaneously healed themselves.

Such patients weren't in fact dead. They were, it turns out, very much alive and still forming memories. Resurrection is not a thing.

> suggesting, I believe, that it's okay to kill them because they're "not people"

Why on Earth would it be OK to kill newborns just because they aren't people? People's pet dogs aren't people either. Have you got it into your head that it's OK to just kill somebody's pet dog if you want to? It isn't.

As I think I already said, the nice thing about a newborn baby from an ethical point of view is that it's not biologically dependent on the mother for life support, so you can just find somebody to adopt it. Turns out there are in fact plenty of would-be adoptive parents.

> At what age or stage of development do newborns turn from not-people to people?

This appears to be a gradual process. Parents will be able to tell you it really sneaks up on you. Fortunately it will almost never matter exactly when and so there's no reason to expend thought on drawing a line in the sand for something you're never going to need to care about.

I didn't say they were dead, I said their doctors diagnosed them as brain-dead. This was actually a mistake on my part; "brain dead" and "vegetative state" are not the same thing. I should have said that they were diagnosed as in a vegetative state. A key point is that they are not aware of things happening and are not forming memories.

> Why on Earth would it be OK to kill newborns just because they aren't people? People's pet dogs aren't people either. Have you got it into your head that it's OK to just kill somebody's pet dog if you want to? It isn't.

It wouldn't be, but what I'm driving at is that killing a newborn (or fetus) is categorically worse than killing anybody's dog.

There is no calculus whereby one can say that some number of animals is "worth more" than some number of humans who may be deficient in some way (too young, unaware of their surroundings, apparently mentally handicapped, severely physically handicapped, whatever), or that killing the latter is "more okay" than killing the former.

> what I'm driving at is that killing [...] a fetus is categorically worse than killing anybody's dog.

Notice how rather than offer any rationale for why you believe this, you just state it - as if astonished that most people don't agree. You've gone from supposed "curiosity" to just re-starting your beliefs and asserting that everybody else is wrong.

Most people who get there do so via dogmatic belief, that is, an insistence that there is no rationale, they don't need one because there are just some things which are correct and everyone will "obviously" believe those things. This can run into a pretty nasty problem beyond just being obviously wrong, which is that it's contrary to Freedom of Conscience and thus if you have power to "enforce" it you've got a UDHR violation...

I'm not astonished that most people don't agree; it's not easy standing up for what you believe is the truth when it's inconvenient or unpopular.

I think a lot of people would agree, though, if left alone with nothing to do except think about whether it's okay to kill a helpless person because we think they can't feel it, or are unaware of what's happening.

I looked at the language in the UDHR and right there in Article 1, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." French naissant, Spanish nacen, Russian рождаются, etc. That's unfortunate.

The UDHR builds on such documents as the Convention on the Rights of the Child which reads "Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s [...] disability, birth or other status." [0] (emphasis added), and the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child which reads "The child must be given the means requisite for its normal development" [1] (emphasis added).

The UDHR text should read "All human beings are conceived free and equal in dignity and rights."

[0] Article 2, https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-te... [1] http://www.un-documents.net/gdrc1924.htm

Rather than being merely "unfortunate" because it's different than either of us would prefer the choice of language was very deliberate.

I think it should say "people" or perhaps "persons" but that didn't happen for a different reason that I'm sure you likewise have dogmatic beliefs about.

The Declaration isn't supplied with teeth, but even without them it seems especially nonsensical to insist upon denying facts. Pregnancies are aborted spontaneously all the time, merely "conceiving" a human being means almost nothing.

What "dogmatic beliefs" are you referring to here, that innocent and helpless people deserve our protection? I don't think that's controversial. We're not animals.

I'm well aware pregnancies are commonly spontaneously aborted, but the key word there is spontaneously, "without apparent cause or stimulus", i.e. not through the choice or neglect of the mother.

> What "dogmatic beliefs" are you referring to here [...] We're not animals.

See, you didn't need any help. Given that some were insistent that humans are not animals, and others were insistent that some ethnic or religious groups of humans aren't people, the resolution was to highlight that the latter claim is wrong, and give up on the other claim for the time being.

This means that status of other species (e.g. octopuses) is not recognised in the UDHR. Arguably a realistic setting of priorities, but still unfortunate in my view of course.

> the key word there is spontaneously

So how is your intuition for other spontaneous events? If your child is spontaneously struck down by Influenza, too bad - they live or die and you're not bothered either way? If a work colleague falls down the stairs, and others present just leave them there, a motionless heap, stepping over the body - does that seem right to you?

> So how is your intuition for other spontaneous events? If your child is spontaneously struck down by Influenza, too bad - they live or die

yes

> and you're not bothered either way?

of course I'd be bothered. elsewhere in this thread I mentioned grieving the loss of the two miscarriages that my wife and I knew about.

> If a work colleague falls down the stairs, and others present just leave them there, a motionless heap, stepping over the body - does that seem right to you?

Either you or I or both of us have really lost the thread here... I guess the falling down the stairs might be considered spontaneous but the others stepping over him instead of helping him is deliberate and probably reprehensible.

Also now that I'm sat down there's this:

> it's not easy standing up for what you believe is the truth when it's inconvenient

From what I can tell, it sure doesn't seem like what you "believe is the truth" is inconvenient for you at all. For somebody who just had about 1% of their lifespan re-assigned as human incubator it seems pretty damn inconvenient.

> For somebody who just had about 1% of their lifespan re-assigned

Your use of the passive voice here makes it seem like the woman wasn't involved in the decision. Choosing to rely on contraception, which has a low but nonzero failure rate, means accepting the low but nonzero possibility of conceiving a child. Having sex without the willingness to bear possible children is tacitly accepting a possibility of needing to kill that child.

The only acceptable choice is to only have sex when you're willing to keep the natural products of sex. This applies to men and women alike. It might be difficult or hard to imagine for some, but it's simple.

I would absolutely support the government easing the burden of women impregnated by rape, including free ultrasounds, pregnancy-related physician visits, a stipend to make it easier for them to order food when they're nauseated and don't want to cook, hell even massages by pregnancy-certified masseuses. Until the government provides those services, I do what I can by donating to life centers.

> Your use of the passive voice here

Let's try again, "For somebody who just had 1% of their lifespan re-assigned by Phil Snowberger here". Does that make it clear where the problem is now?

I can think of many things you could be getting at, but.. what are you getting at?