Should there be an amendment to the constitution defining Human life?

Question

As Decarte so aptly put it "Cogito ergo sum" I think therefore I am. If we defined human life as when their is a detectable EEG or brain activity by law, it would allow for euthenization of Brain dead people, and would set an agreeable time limit for legal abortions. There is no EEG until the second tri-mester.

Luke if their is a complete absence of brain activity there would be little reason to ask it's opinion since simple living tissue has none. You might as well ask the wart on your finger its opinion before you burn it off your hand. You would get the some response.

Luke if there is a complete absence of brain activity there would be little reason to ask it's opinion since simple living tissue has none. You might as well ask the wart on your finger its opinion before you burn it off your hand. You would get the some response.

Answer 1

Possibly. There are a LOT of exceptions to the rules, though.

Terri Schiavo had a heartbeat but I wouldn't've described her as "alive" for the last decade of her "life". No, I wouldn't consider something with JUST a heartbeat "alive", nor would I go so far as to say that something is "alive" only if it can accomplish tasks like hunting and gathering or crocheting a blanket.

I think I'd say that a fetus is "alive" once it has a recognizable EEG pattern which shows up at about 25 - 28 weeks of gestation. The age of viability is also at around 25 weeks (a poor but possible chance to survive).

To me, it seems obvious that conscious thought is a major part of what being alive is for humans, or at least existent. "Cognito Ergo Sum." There's also waste excretion, response to stimuli, undergoing metabolism... there's biological life and cognitive life.

Question to you: would you want the amendment to include biological and cognitive or just one or the other?

Answer 2

Perhaps we should consider redefining "brain dead" as well. We could then euthanize those with whom we diagree by amending the constitution to suit our whims. It is possible that an EEG would not be conclusive either so maybe we should wait until a first word is spoken - then you could still abort up to 9 or 10 months after birth. Might be convenient for some parents who "changed their mind". GET REAL!

That little peanut shaped blob at even a few weeks after conception is not a tumor or benign growth within that womb. That IS a life starting. By the way, to whom would this "agreeable time limit" be agreeable TO?! The living, growing fetus? I think not. And "euthenization of brain dead people"?! Is this a remake of soylent green? Are brain dead human beings now in the same class as unwanted puppies and kittens? (Which is wrong on so many levels as well.) We'll wait until YOU are in a coma and misdiagnosed as brain dead and graciously and mercifully euthenize you as you are screaming inside that you're not ready to die yet. But, alas, a higher lifeform has made the descision for you. Too bad.

Answer 3

Bad idea. It would automaticly save everybody on death row from their sentenced execution. Also, legislating a time period for abortions is not going to solve the problem; infact it will make matters worse as far as the safety and health of the mother are concerned.

The last time the government defined human life, slaves were only counted as 3/5 of a person for census data. I am scared of what nonsense our current elected officials would enact. Best to leave sleeping dogs lie.

Answer 4

Good luck getting that one past the conservative Christians. They won't even let stem cell research occur if a single stem cell is removed not harming the embryo in any way because there is the possibility of life from that stem cell.

Answer 5

The constitution tells how the government operates and what it CANT do to the citizens.

This is neither of those,

Answer 6

No...that would most likely exclude the first amendment.