:first: Well said, Crow! :up:Originally posted by Crow
Originally posted by avatar382
That's very tragic
I was discussing thought and emotion because the degree to which human beings are capable of such things.
I've had pets that were indeed very intelligent, and I could feel that they loved me on some level...
Yet, I've never seen a dog or cat or even primate use their brains in the ways that even a toddler can. There simply is no comparison.
Our capacity for thought and emotion has resulted in humans developing languages, invention, and the transcendence of our own biology. I am not convinced that the little ingenuity and basic emotion shown by animals in nature is a result of pure creative thought and not just a hardwired mechanism.
Would you agree that this capacity for pure creative thought and a wide range of emotions (to name a few: http://www.geocities.com/actorsinspiration/emotions.html)
is what sets us apart from the rest of the animals in this world? If not, what does?
Now to answer your question:
Based on what I have read regarding profound mental retardation, the unfortunate souls afflited with this condition should be treated to the fullest extent of modern medicine. I would advocate preserving their lives.
Why? The simple answer: Even the profoundly retarded, with their only partially functioning brains still emit their own brain waves. Legally, they are not dead until this has ceased. Brain activity = living human being and all the rights thereto appertaing.
Of course - this poor boy only had a a snowballs chance in hell of living more than a few minutes outside of the womb because medical technology could replace his biology - he was not viable in that he could not sustain his own basic biologial functions, but we have machines that can do that for him. Valid questions include: should we use technology to grant life where none would otherwise exist? Is this "playing god"? There are no simple answers to such questions.
To me, using brain activity as the mark of the start of a new human life is the most logical compromise of quite a dilemma.
I don't believe in "playing God." To me, that is exactly what one does when one ends the life of a child who if left undisturbed will be born and mature to a human adult.
I would not have placed a non-viable child on life support--when he was born it was apparant that he would not survive with or without intervention. Not intervening is not "playing God" to me. It is accepting that this person will not survive, and such people should be permitted to die with all comfort that they are capable of feeling, and as a human being.
Believe it or not, I can even think of an instance when ending a fetal life is justified. Ectopic pregnancy. At this point in time, we cannot save these babies--all we can do is save the mother's live. Hopefully some day this will change.
I myself don't see "brain waves" as a compromise. In human life or death, there is no compromise. You are human or you are not.
I am a human. I have existed as a unique human since conception, when the genetic makeup that produced me joined, and created a human with a distinct inheritance different from any other person on earth.
If I were born unable to live, it would not rob me of my life to allow me to die quietly, as a human. But if one were to rip me from the womb, slaughter me, and deny me my entire human existance look at what would have been denied. How many years?--I count 48 so far. Hundreds of thousands of years of human life have been stolen--dumped into stainless steel buckets with no more regard than taking out the garbage.
This is why I get so outraged by abortion.:crow2:
CONTEXT