---

Parasites do not get the right to decide whether or not their host will get rid of them.

---

---

sapient (adj.) - Having great wisdom and discernment.
Are you sure babies qualify?

---

I suggest you drop the smug tone. Using a single sentence definition from an online dictionary isn't exactly the best way to gain an accurate appraisal of a complex issue.

Sentience can mean any of the following:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

---

The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception.

---

I suggest you educate yourself about both sentience, and sapience.

---

Why does responsiveness to pain matter?

---

If an animal can feel pain, according to the Principle of Equal Consideration, one should take their pain into consideration.

---

And why doesn't your "err on the side of caution" policy extend to foetuses?

---

I've already explained this. A 'young' fetus lacks a functional nervous system, and also lacks the brain regions which allow for higher thought (aka. Cerebral cortex). A baby DOES indeed possess a functional nervous system, along with association areas in the brain which are distinguishing factor of higher thought, and complex emotion.

The fact that they aren't fully developed draws into question how much 'higher thought' a baby possesses, but once again, I prefer to err on the side of caution.

---

So it would be okay to kill someone who currently had no higher brain function even if they were going to wake up in an hour?

---

Ahh, so now you're backpeddling from the coma patient after I pointed out that they are indeed sapient, and are now throwing out more and more ridiculous hypotheticals.

Are you trying to say that a person with no higher brain function can suddenly wake up and miraculously regain their higher brain function? If not, then please clarify.

Here, I'll put it to you simply: IMHO, any human being in a vegetative state (no higher brain function) is not entitled to human rights.

---

I suggest you drop the smug tone. Using a single sentence definition from an online dictionary isn't exactly the best way to gain an accurate appraisal of a complex issue.

---

---

Sentience can mean any of the following:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

---

 The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception.  

---

I suggest you educate yourself about both sentience, and sapience.

---

Quote: from mountain hare at 3:04 pm on April 4, 2007

---

---

Babies are not sapient.  

---

Debatable. I'd argue that they have some degree of sapience.

---

---

If an animal can feel pain, according to the Principle of Equal Consideration, one should take their pain into consideration.

---

My point was that an organism's sentience should be the determining factor, not their responsiveness to pain.

---

I've already explained this. A 'young' fetus lacks a functional nervous system, and also lacks the brain regions which allow for higher thought (aka. Cerebral cortex). A baby DOES indeed possess a functional nervous system, along with association areas in the brain which are distinguishing factor of higher thought, and complex emotion.  

The fact that they aren't fully developed draws into question how much 'higher thought' a baby possesses, but once again, I prefer to err on the side of caution.

---

---

Ahh, so now you're backpeddling from the coma patient after I pointed out that they are indeed sapient, and are now throwing out more and more ridiculous hypotheticals.

---

---

Are you trying to say that a person with no higher brain function can suddenly wake up and miraculously regain their higher brain function? If not, then please clarify.

---

---

Here, I'll put it to you simply: IMHO, any human being in a vegetative state (no higher brain function) is not entitled to human rights.

---

---

Because hosts have the right to rid themselves of parasites.

---

---

Quote: from Apotheosis at 3:17 pm on April 4, 2007

---

Because hosts have the right to rid themselves of parasites.

---

Does that extend to Siamese twins who are fully mentally developed, but contribute nothing to their twin and rely on them for survival?

---

---

There is no host/parasite relationship in that case--it's a symbiotic relationship.

---

Describes a close relationship between two species in which at least one benefits.

---

Fine, to be specific, mutualist symbiotism. A relationship where both individuals benefit from the interaction. Contrast with the parasitical relationship of pregnant woman who wants to abort/baby--the baby leeches off food and energy, while harming the host (can't drink, can't smoke, gets fat, gets hormonal, whatnot).

---

"Does that extend to Siamese twins who are fully mentally developed, but contribute nothing to their twin and rely on them for survival?"

Also, from an evolutionary point of view, the baby/foetus is benefiting the mother.

And if the mother wants the baby aborted, then the baby isn't benefiting the mother. Anything benefits anything else in some way, if they're related, but the call here is made by the mother.

As for the Siamese parasite, if you could prove that Parasite does not "co-own" any of the organs Host has and uses, then I'd be in favor of cutting Parasite off.

And would someone have the right to destroy an organ they co-owned with someone if doing so would kill the other person?

---

If you don't define the term how can you decide which organs are owned by who?

And would someone have the right to destroy an organ they co-owned with someone if doing so would kill the other person?

---