Hmmm... not much of a definition. What specifically about Terri Shiavo rendered her not a person? Not saying you are wrong or even that I disagree, but I am trying to encourage you to spell out exactly what specific criteria in that situation rendered her 'properly brain dead' and therefore not a person?
Sentience seems to be a pretty good line to draw. Before here's a developed, active central nervous system it is not and can not be a person.
Reasonable but you do realize that most newborns are not sentient? Are you okay with legally killing a newborn? What about people in a coma even if they have a high probability of recovering?
The presence of an active central nervous system takes care of newborns even if they have not reached the level of sentience yet but you still have the problem of people who have temporarily lost higher brain function but will recover. Are they not a person during the period they have lost the activity in their brain? Does the fact that they will likely recover continue to qualify them as a person? If so, then even an embryo will likely develop an active central nervous system so shouldn't they likewise qualify? I am playing devil's advocate here but the truth is that when you draw that line it has implications for more than just that embryo.
The post to which I was replying said 'unconscious lump of cells' not brain dead. But lets run with this. What's the definition of 'properly brain dead'?
A blastocyst hasn't even gotten to the point of being an embryo, let alone a foetus, let alone a baby
And a newborn hasn't even gotten to be a toddler, let alone an adolescent, let alone an adult.
You didn't answer my question which was "when and why a developing human becomes 'human'" I'll take it to mean you really have no clue. You probably should think this through more carefully before you blast someone else's opinion. Without having answered the above question 'objectively', your opinion is just as subjective as everyone else's.
Your example of a condom full of semen or used tampon is dramatic and emotionally charged but not founded in science. It can be totally discredited with the simple explanation that unlike a blastocyst, embryo, etc. sperm and eggs do not contain a full genetic code for a new and unique human being.
So take some time and think about when a human becomes human and try to give a sound logical explanation to back up your opinion.
This is a good post from the standpoint of eschewing emotion but the logic lacks something to be desired. For instance there is wild variation in the mental capabilties of animals. Can you be more specific? Also why does an individual have to have superior mental capabilities to your chosen animal to qualify as human? Not saying your wrong. You just need to describe the rationale for why you think that criteria should be the standard by which 'humanity' is measured.
This is great! This is very much where I stand. However, doing some research on this topic a while back I found a website (from a link on a pro-choice site) that defined brain death. The definition was no brain activity with no hope of recovery. That last bit is the gotcha. It prevents us from say pulling the plug on someone who will likely or even possibly recover their brain function. The trouble is that it also hampers pulling the plug on a fetus that does not yet have brain activity since it is highly likely that, allowed to continue in the womb, they will gain full use of their brains.
Anyway, something to consider and thank you for the well thought out post.
As usual, most counter arguments are based in ignorance and/or religious dogma. It was painful trying to watch some politicians argue against this - doubly so for the ones who didn't have the stones to admit they oppose it because of their personal moral beliefs and attempted (as you did) to come up with some other, "objective" reasoning
You impugn the poster's 'objective' reasoning but you fail to mention where your powers of logic and reason draw the line. Is it the trip down the birth canal that makes a fetus human? Obviously a logical mind knows that that scientifically doesn't make any sense. Please do enlighten us with your reasons for when and why a developing human becomes 'human'.
So where do you draw the line? Let's assume just for conversation sake that life begins at conception. At what point do you consider it a "life" such that it should not be ethically terminated? Conception? Embryo? Fetus? Partially-delivered? Delivered? 18 months after delivery? 10 years after delivery? 65 years after delivery?
Ooooh, I'd love to see answers to this. Not just from the original poster but from everyone. We know that the religious faithful are making their decision not based on logic and reason, but I posit that most who believe they are making the rational decision (usually that destroying an embryo is very different than killing a baby) are doing so based on emotion and not on reason at all.
So an embryo doesn't count as a 'person' but a newborn does. Why? Where's the line where 'personhood' was achieved? What's your very logical, reasonable and scientific explanation for where you drew that line? I'd like to hear people take on this.
With the CD to MP3 format changeover, moving one's music oneself is trivial. Put the disc into iTunes, hit Rip. Thus, a lot of people aren't repurchasing their music as they did in the past, because this changeover is easier than any in the past. This drives the record companies crazy, because they've been used to getting a huge influx of cash every time one of these changeovers has happened in the past -- in fact, they think they're entitled to it. That is their critical mistake. They are not.
Actually you make an excellent argument for why some might consider the format changeover a violation of copyright law! I don't agree myself but to play devil's advocate take a look at the fair use write up in Wikipedia that I posted in another comment:
One of the criteria for whether a use is fair is the effect it has on the market for the original. Clearly as you point out the format changeover has an effect on the market and therefore COULD be construed to violate fair use.
I believe you are mistaken as that would be a direct violation of the fourth criteria of fair use according to the 'Copyright Act':
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
Clearly giving mp3's to your girlfriend's brother has an affect on the market since he would no longer need to purchase the music himself.
What's frightening is just how broadly that can be interpreted. For instance, it could be argued that making a backup is not fair use since record companies could claim a certain percentage of their sales are replacement copies and therefore making a backup affects their market.
NOTE: my quotation of the wikipedia site IS fair use since I am simply quoting it for illustrative purposes.... I think.
We needed at least ten years of Clinton-like policies before we got the debt under control, i.e., where we use it cover for shortfalls and disasters but it's normally nothing. Now we'll probably need twenty thanks to borrow-and-spend conservatives.
What the hell are you talking about? Why are you blaming Clinton for a bubble busting? The stock market was clearly out of control at that time. Are you about to blame the Bush for the housing bubble bursting right now?
So in the same post you credit Clinton with the budget surplus generated during the economic 'bubble' and absolve him of all responsibility for the subsequent bursting of the bubble.
It was called a 'surplus', but it wasn't, not in a sane environment.
So Clinton and Kerry were just lying.;) Just kidding. I get your point but I did specifically say 'budget surplus' in my original post which is specific and correct.
If you owe ten thousand dollars in interest-bearing accounts, paying four hundred dollars interest every year, and suddenly come up with an extra thousand dollars at the end of the year, you don't have a 'surplus' of money if you a fiscally responsible. You merely have a way to reduce your debt.
Not necessarily true. Lets take a more realistic example. Suppose you owe $100k on your home at 5% interest. Now suppose you have $100k in a mutual fund returning on average 10%. Is it fiscally more responsible to pay off your house or continue making mortgage payments and pocketing the extra 5% gain each year? Now when it comes to the economy and national debt I don't know what the numbers are but without knowing them you cannot say outright that every extra dollar is better spent paying down the debt. I also make the assumption that Clinton's budget took already took the national debt into account.
As far as refunding the surplus goes, yes the money is already out of the hands of the people but if that has created a burden to the economy then re-injecting those funds back into the economy by refunding them would be a nice pick-me-up. However, I do not believe that Clinton or most others for that matter foresaw the impending hit that the economy was going to suffer and felt justified in putting that money to other use.
And I most certainly can complain that Clinton taxed too much. I watched family and friends lose jobs in the subsequent crash. I watched my own investments tank. I have older friends whose retirement plans went out the window because their retirement investments took huge hits. Was it worth it? Are you claiming that was a good thing? Do you think there was a net decrease in the national debt?
I am pleased with the recovery of the economy and hope the government is careful to consider the impact of any burdens it imposes on the economy in the future.
Incidentally there were two years of budget surplus under Clinton just before the crash.
No there wasn't. The government was spending less money than it was taking in, but it's not a 'surplus' when you owe several trillion dollars. Clinton quite rightly put the extra money towards the debt instead of stupidly handing it back to people.
There most certainly was a surplus. When they speak of surplus they are referring to income versus budgeted expenses, and Clinton et al referred to it as a surplus and Kerry in fact talked about the surplus as part of his campaign in 2004. So I am afraid you are very much mistaken.
As far as Clinton doing the right thing, you may be correct. As I said it is only speculated that it took too much money from the hands of the consumers. It is very hard to argue with a major market crash and economic disaster in his last year of office and following on the heels of two years of surplus. I for one think that maintaining a strong national economy is a better long term solution to the national debt than squeezing until the economy tanks. But that could just be my stupidity talking. *shrug*
Actually Clinton didn't get out right before it crashed though he was almost out. The 'Crash of 2000' started in April and by March of 2001 the NASDAQ had suffered the biggest loss of any market index since the great depression. It took 25 years to recover from the great depression so its pretty amazing that the market has recovered from the crash of 2000 in only six years. I think change is good for the other aspects of the government but I do worry about the economy.
Incidentally there were two years of budget surplus under Clinton just before the crash. Clinton took the controversial step of spending that surplus instead of essentially refunding it. There is some speculation that keeping that money out of the hands of consumers contributed to the crash and so Clinton may be at least partially responsible.
Your point (1) is probably the most compelling. The economic performance under a given president, at least in the early years, is probably more a direct result of the previous president's economic policies than the current one. Interesting that the referenced study starts with the first president after the recovery from the great depression.
Someone comes to your house and knocks on the door. When you answer he tells you he has just looked over your house and it is infested with termites. If you pay him a large fee he will treat it immediately to before irreparable harm has been done.
Do you fork over the money without question? If so, where do you live?;)
Einstein: "The important thing is not to stop questioning."
Hmmm... I am not sure why this has anything to do with property law. I am not talking about someone claiming the house as their own but rather being in the house without permission. Lets use a more specific example. Can a salesperson simply walk into my house and accost me simply because I didn't lock the front door?
Also what is meant by 'a private club (with PUBLIC ACCESS)'?
Why would Snow not get what he wanted if the unauthorized users were punished for fraud?
If you are right then the speed of light would change as the universe expands. Today I measure the distance between two objects with my 186 mile ruler. Then measure the time it takes light to get from one to the other. I get 0.001 seconds. Tomorrow I again measure the distance with the same ruler. It still says they are 186 miles apart since the ruler has expanded as well but now the light takes 0.00101 seconds to get there. As an observer I must conclude that the speed of light has changed. The real question I have is if space itself is expanding why do the distances between objects change? Do objects also expand or only the 'empty' spaces between them?
BTW, the ladybug is not really a two dimensional creature living within the geometry of the surface of the balloon.
Suppose I draw two dots on a balloon to mark the positions of your molecules and then add tick marks between them at every inch to measure the distance. Now you inflate the balloon and we count the tick marks to see how far apart the molecules are now. Amazingly we find they are the same distance apart!
Now I am no expert on general relativity so I am certain I am wrong, but if it is space itself that is expanding why wouldn't the distances measured within that space still be the same?
Slashdot Mirror
Well like Terri Schiavo for example.
Hmmm... not much of a definition. What specifically about Terri Shiavo rendered her not a person? Not saying you are wrong or even that I disagree, but I am trying to encourage you to spell out exactly what specific criteria in that situation rendered her 'properly brain dead' and therefore not a person?
Sentience seems to be a pretty good line to draw. Before here's a developed, active central nervous system it is not and can not be a person.
Reasonable but you do realize that most newborns are not sentient? Are you okay with legally killing a newborn? What about people in a coma even if they have a high probability of recovering?
The presence of an active central nervous system takes care of newborns even if they have not reached the level of sentience yet but you still have the problem of people who have temporarily lost higher brain function but will recover. Are they not a person during the period they have lost the activity in their brain? Does the fact that they will likely recover continue to qualify them as a person? If so, then even an embryo will likely develop an active central nervous system so shouldn't they likewise qualify? I am playing devil's advocate here but the truth is that when you draw that line it has implications for more than just that embryo.
Properly braindead comas?
The post to which I was replying said 'unconscious lump of cells' not brain dead. But lets run with this. What's the definition of 'properly brain dead'?
A blastocyst hasn't even gotten to the point of being an embryo, let alone a foetus, let alone a baby
And a newborn hasn't even gotten to be a toddler, let alone an adolescent, let alone an adult.
You didn't answer my question which was "when and why a developing human becomes 'human'" I'll take it to mean you really have no clue. You probably should think this through more carefully before you blast someone else's opinion. Without having answered the above question 'objectively', your opinion is just as subjective as everyone else's.
Your example of a condom full of semen or used tampon is dramatic and emotionally charged but not founded in science. It can be totally discredited with the simple explanation that unlike a blastocyst, embryo, etc. sperm and eggs do not contain a full genetic code for a new and unique human being.
So take some time and think about when a human becomes human and try to give a sound logical explanation to back up your opinion.
This is a good post from the standpoint of eschewing emotion but the logic lacks something to be desired. For instance there is wild variation in the mental capabilties of animals. Can you be more specific? Also why does an individual have to have superior mental capabilities to your chosen animal to qualify as human? Not saying your wrong. You just need to describe the rationale for why you think that criteria should be the standard by which 'humanity' is measured.
This is great! This is very much where I stand. However, doing some research on this topic a while back I found a website (from a link on a pro-choice site) that defined brain death. The definition was no brain activity with no hope of recovery. That last bit is the gotcha. It prevents us from say pulling the plug on someone who will likely or even possibly recover their brain function. The trouble is that it also hampers pulling the plug on a fetus that does not yet have brain activity since it is highly likely that, allowed to continue in the womb, they will gain full use of their brains.
Anyway, something to consider and thank you for the well thought out post.
As usual, most counter arguments are based in ignorance and/or religious dogma. It was painful trying to watch some politicians argue against this - doubly so for the ones who didn't have the stones to admit they oppose it because of their personal moral beliefs and attempted (as you did) to come up with some other, "objective" reasoning
You impugn the poster's 'objective' reasoning but you fail to mention where your powers of logic and reason draw the line. Is it the trip down the birth canal that makes a fetus human? Obviously a logical mind knows that that scientifically doesn't make any sense. Please do enlighten us with your reasons for when and why a developing human becomes 'human'.
Stem cell research is not illegal and does get federal funding. However, there are restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
So where do you draw the line? Let's assume just for conversation sake that life begins at conception. At what point do you consider it a "life" such that it should not be ethically terminated? Conception? Embryo? Fetus? Partially-delivered? Delivered? 18 months after delivery? 10 years after delivery? 65 years after delivery?
Ooooh, I'd love to see answers to this. Not just from the original poster but from everyone. We know that the religious faithful are making their decision not based on logic and reason, but I posit that most who believe they are making the rational decision (usually that destroying an embryo is very different than killing a baby) are doing so based on emotion and not on reason at all.
So an embryo doesn't count as a 'person' but a newborn does. Why? Where's the line where 'personhood' was achieved? What's your very logical, reasonable and scientific explanation for where you drew that line? I'd like to hear people take on this.
Why whould it be unethical to experiment on an unconsious lump of cells?
Like say for instance all the people in comas?
With the CD to MP3 format changeover, moving one's music oneself is trivial. Put the disc into iTunes, hit Rip. Thus, a lot of people aren't repurchasing their music as they did in the past, because this changeover is easier than any in the past. This drives the record companies crazy, because they've been used to getting a huge influx of cash every time one of these changeovers has happened in the past -- in fact, they think they're entitled to it. That is their critical mistake. They are not.
Actually you make an excellent argument for why some might consider the format changeover a violation of copyright law! I don't agree myself but to play devil's advocate take a look at the fair use write up in Wikipedia that I posted in another comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
One of the criteria for whether a use is fair is the effect it has on the market for the original. Clearly as you point out the format changeover has an effect on the market and therefore COULD be construed to violate fair use.
Fair use even means that you can copy your CD's into MP3's and give them to your girlfriend's brother.
Check out the article on 'fair use' on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
I believe you are mistaken as that would be a direct violation of the fourth criteria of fair use according to the 'Copyright Act':
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
Clearly giving mp3's to your girlfriend's brother has an affect on the market since he would no longer need to purchase the music himself.
What's frightening is just how broadly that can be interpreted. For instance, it could be argued that making a backup is not fair use since record companies could claim a certain percentage of their sales are replacement copies and therefore making a backup affects their market.
NOTE: my quotation of the wikipedia site IS fair use since I am simply quoting it for illustrative purposes.... I think.
We needed at least ten years of Clinton-like policies before we got the debt under control, i.e., where we use it cover for shortfalls and disasters but it's normally nothing. Now we'll probably need twenty thanks to borrow-and-spend conservatives.
What the hell are you talking about? Why are you blaming Clinton for a bubble busting? The stock market was clearly out of control at that time. Are you about to blame the Bush for the housing bubble bursting right now?
So in the same post you credit Clinton with the budget surplus generated during the economic 'bubble' and absolve him of all responsibility for the subsequent bursting of the bubble.
Hmmmm... I'm done here. Thank you for playing.
-Harry
It was called a 'surplus', but it wasn't, not in a sane environment.
So Clinton and Kerry were just lying. ;) Just kidding. I get your point but I did specifically say 'budget surplus' in my original post which is specific and correct.
If you owe ten thousand dollars in interest-bearing accounts, paying four hundred dollars interest every year, and suddenly come up with an extra thousand dollars at the end of the year, you don't have a 'surplus' of money if you a fiscally responsible. You merely have a way to reduce your debt.
Not necessarily true. Lets take a more realistic example. Suppose you owe $100k on your home at 5% interest. Now suppose you have $100k in a mutual fund returning on average 10%. Is it fiscally more responsible to pay off your house or continue making mortgage payments and pocketing the extra 5% gain each year? Now when it comes to the economy and national debt I don't know what the numbers are but without knowing them you cannot say outright that every extra dollar is better spent paying down the debt. I also make the assumption that Clinton's budget took already took the national debt into account.
As far as refunding the surplus goes, yes the money is already out of the hands of the people but if that has created a burden to the economy then re-injecting those funds back into the economy by refunding them would be a nice pick-me-up. However, I do not believe that Clinton or most others for that matter foresaw the impending hit that the economy was going to suffer and felt justified in putting that money to other use.
And I most certainly can complain that Clinton taxed too much. I watched family and friends lose jobs in the subsequent crash. I watched my own investments tank. I have older friends whose retirement plans went out the window because their retirement investments took huge hits. Was it worth it? Are you claiming that was a good thing? Do you think there was a net decrease in the national debt?
I am pleased with the recovery of the economy and hope the government is careful to consider the impact of any burdens it imposes on the economy in the future.
-Harry
Incidentally there were two years of budget surplus under Clinton just before the crash.
No there wasn't. The government was spending less money than it was taking in, but it's not a 'surplus' when you owe several trillion dollars. Clinton quite rightly put the extra money towards the debt instead of stupidly handing it back to people.
There most certainly was a surplus. When they speak of surplus they are referring to income versus budgeted expenses, and Clinton et al referred to it as a surplus and Kerry in fact talked about the surplus as part of his campaign in 2004. So I am afraid you are very much mistaken.
As far as Clinton doing the right thing, you may be correct. As I said it is only speculated that it took too much money from the hands of the consumers. It is very hard to argue with a major market crash and economic disaster in his last year of office and following on the heels of two years of surplus. I for one think that maintaining a strong national economy is a better long term solution to the national debt than squeezing until the economy tanks. But that could just be my stupidity talking. *shrug*
-Harry
Incidentally there were two years of budget surplus under Clinton just before the crash. Clinton took the controversial step of spending that surplus instead of essentially refunding it. There is some speculation that keeping that money out of the hands of consumers contributed to the crash and so Clinton may be at least partially responsible.
Your point (1) is probably the most compelling. The economic performance under a given president, at least in the early years, is probably more a direct result of the previous president's economic policies than the current one. Interesting that the referenced study starts with the first president after the recovery from the great depression.
-Harry
Someone comes to your house and knocks on the door. When you answer he tells you he has just looked over your house and it is infested with termites. If you pay him a large fee he will treat it immediately to before irreparable harm has been done.
Do you fork over the money without question? If so, where do you live? ;)
Einstein: "The important thing is not to stop questioning."
-Harry
Also what is meant by 'a private club (with PUBLIC ACCESS)'?
Why would Snow not get what he wanted if the unauthorized users were punished for fraud?
Thanks, -Harry
So if I don't lock the front door to my house is it not considered a private residence?
As a second question could Snow have sued for misrepresentation or fraud?
If you are right then the speed of light would change as the universe expands. Today I measure the distance between two objects with my 186 mile ruler. Then measure the time it takes light to get from one to the other. I get 0.001 seconds. Tomorrow I again measure the distance with the same ruler. It still says they are 186 miles apart since the ruler has expanded as well but now the light takes 0.00101 seconds to get there. As an observer I must conclude that the speed of light has changed. The real question I have is if space itself is expanding why do the distances between objects change? Do objects also expand or only the 'empty' spaces between them?
BTW, the ladybug is not really a two dimensional creature living within the geometry of the surface of the balloon.
Suppose I draw two dots on a balloon to mark the positions of your molecules and then add tick marks between them at every inch to measure the distance. Now you inflate the balloon and we count the tick marks to see how far apart the molecules are now. Amazingly we find they are the same distance apart!
Now I am no expert on general relativity so I am certain I am wrong, but if it is space itself that is expanding why wouldn't the distances measured within that space still be the same?
Thanks,
-Harry