meister@faron.UUCP (Phillip W. Servita) (01/03/85)
>>>[Paul Dubuc] Suppose a physical condition (sickness, whatever) >>>impares you mental ability for a time. At that point in time you might >>>fall below the threshold and by your criteria you could be killed rather >>>than treated no matter how likely the treatment would make your future >>>recovery. >> >>[me] You are making some assumptions about what WE think here. maybe YOU >>recognize the right for people to 'metabolize' (not live) in such cases, >>but *I* do not. Suppose i am in such a state. Then my parents, friends, >>spouse, etc. has the right to give such treatment or not, depending on >>whether they feel they want me around. I will have no knowledge of the >>situation, and certainly cannot be hurt by the decision made. As far as >>I am concerned, THAT WHICH HAS NO CONSCIOUSNESS HAS NO RIGHTS. > >[Kenn Barry] This is absolutely absurd. Do you even read what you write before >posting it? By your "logic" someone could justifiably murder you in your >sleep (no "consciousness"). No consciousness when asleep? Pure BS. Try leaving the radio on some night when sleeping. Also, (maybe i am just an idealist) i thought that we had better ways to tell if some[one,thing] is conscious than "Golly Gee, Bob, Joe over there doesnt seem to be listening." The only way a scenario similar to the above "absurdity" could possibly happen is by an application of absurd, insufficient judgement. "Three is prime, Five is prime, Seven is prime... Gosh Bob, all odd numbers are prime!" I still hold that the original principle is correct. -the venn buddhist -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "if people knew how to fly, they wouldnt want to walk their dogs" --------------------------------------------------------------------------