Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (6393)	2/23/2001 6:42:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) of 82486

I've labeled my best understanding of what you're saying as sentimentality. I guess you don't feel that word fits or you wouldn't have repeated your position. I was trying to clarify my position. I don't think it is is really based on sentimentality except to the extent that caring about anything can be considered sentimentality. What I think isn't sentimentality but the fact that I care about it could be considered to be. I agree with everything you say right up to the point where you conclude that this alive, human, distinct thing is entitled from conception to all the rights and privileges of a newborn. The "alive, human, distinct thing, with full human potential, was all about classifing it as a member of the human species. I think that all members or at least all innocent members of a sentient speicies have a right to life. But let me ask you this--do you think you understand where I'm coming from better than I understand you? I know you don't agree, but do you think you understand? Just curious about whether this communication problem works both ways. Good question. The fact that the answer wasn't immediate itself tells me that atleast I don't completly understand the reasons for your position. We have talked about diferent areas and aspect of this debate. I think I have some understanding where you are comming from on the over all question and some of the reasons you are against outlawing abortion would be the same reasons I would be against it if I didn't view the fetus as poscessing a right to life. But there are a lot of sub issues. I think in this case you are specifically asking if I understand where you are comming from on the question of a fertilized egg or an early embryo being considered a seperate person and having rights. I guess I understand your position decently but probably not completly and as is now all ready obvious, I don't agree with it. Concurrently, I'm a systems person so I also look at humans in context. It makes no sense to me to add another billion humans to the planet at the expense of the extinction of the tiger. I don't want the tiger to become extinct but I think the species numbers are down so far that I question if it serves an important larger role in any major ecosystem. (on a very local level it still might). My reasons for not wanting the tiger to become extinct are probably purely based on sentimentality. I would save an innocent human child over the last living tiger. Also if extremely tight world wide regulation of human activity was needed to perserve the tiger then I would rather the species go extinct then to have the human race give up so much of its freedom. A long time ago I used to daydream about doing a survey to see how "specieist" people really are. In my mind I created a scenario in which the participant had to choose a course that would result in the death of either column A or column B. Column A would be a human and column B would be another animal. For example, a condemned serial killer one hour from execution vs. the participant's companion animal. Or a person in an irreversible coma vs. the last mating pair of bald eagles on earth. I'd bet most people would pick the human in all cases. I wouldn't. If I was unalterably opposed to the death penalty then I might pick the condemned murderer over someone's pet. I am however on the fence about the death penalty and I have been for years. Also in this case the seriel killer is going do die anyway you are just talking about changeing the schedule of the execution. As for someone in an irreversible coma if it is truely 100% irreversible then I would think they would be "brain dead". On the other hand if there is only one mating pair of bald eagles then I don't know that the species could survive, the future generations of eagles would be very inbred. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next