Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (80454)	3/5/2004 2:12:26 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Would you make a distinction between them if you could only save one?" It depends entirely on how they are dressed. news.bbc.co.uk

To: Solon who wrote (80454)	3/9/2004 11:24:47 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Would you value a biological human zygote ahead of an alien with a refined intellect and a consciousness characterized by both reason and compassion? Ahead of? No I don't think so. How about a biological human with an alien appearance and no remaining consciousness beyond parasympathetic electrical activity? No remaining consciousness? Am I to assume that this is a permanent condition? If so I would probably value the "alien with a refined intellect and a consciousness characterized by both reason and compassion" more. Certainly not less. True. And everything else is a potential human. There is a big difference between something that is a human and something that could potentially be transformed in to one. As for the hypothetical situation with the two children in the fire, in such scenarios distinctions are often made between humans. For example a child will usually be rescued before an adult. This is partially because the child is less able to help itself, and partially because the child hasn't experienced much in life and people want to give the child that chance, and partially because the child probably has more of its life ahead of it, and partially because of emotional and cultural preference for saving children, maybe there are other reasons as well. In this case the child in an irreversible coma hasn't had much of a chance to experience life but he or she will never get that chance whether or not you save that child. If I knew the child in the coma would soon come out of the coma that child's lack of consciousness at the moment would be "only of peripheral concern or moment", but your scenario specified a coma that is irreversible or at least believed to be irreversible. Tim