yeah, i know, i'll address that later (tomorrow), the first was just easier.

Yeah I know, I was should have phrased that better. I was trying to phrase it agist a person who dissagreed, and I was in a hurry, so I didn't have time to make that clear. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to help you out here. :/





I dissagree with the first part of your statement. What does dependancy have to do with being human? Little babies have total dependancy on their mothers too. People in iron lungs have total depdancy on the machines that keep them alive. Are they less human because of this?

However, I do think you made an interesting point about brain activity. A very well though out statement. It's very convincing. However, wouldn't this be the same thing as a person's brain activity flat-lining for a few minits? Are they people? I'm going to give this some thought. You may be right, but I still think it is dangerous to make a decision like that. I know the individual cells are alive, but is this when the life of the over all being occurs? It’s a difficult call, and I think it is dangerous to play a guessing game with some one's life like that. Kind of like weather you should unplug the machine when some one is in a vegetative state. Some times it hard to tell weather a person’s alive or if you’re just pumping blood through a corpse.

look at it this way - Human beings only exist as two seperate entities; conscience and memory. Memory is a biological aspect, stored within neuron patterns. Conscience, is the electrical energy that goes through the cortex. Without these two, there is no person inside, it's simply a vehicle waiting for it's occupant. Even at a point where the fetus can move on it's own, there still isn't a person inside, it's merely motor functions being tested out. Wether you stop 'production' at this point or earlier really makes no difference.

They should put him in a no holds barred fight to the death against the Governator.

But at what point in the fetus' deveopment do those things exist? That's the real question. How can you say that a baby kicking in the womb isn't a conscious effort?

Needles! That'll do it!

Sort of like not turning it on yet. That makes sence. However it would seems that, without a soul, we're lumps of flesh anyway. From there we can go in two dirictions: Either one, we have no soul, in which case a lump of flesh with electiral implulses is just that, a highly advanced machine. Or two humans have a soul, in which case life would be determined by the presance of a soul. We have no way of knowing if the soul's presance is liked to the bodies concinseness, or if it inhabits the body at the moment it starts forming. In case of the latter, we would be at best, risking the lives of the fetuses we abort before brain activity begins. In the first senarrio, I would have a hard time justifying any life as being more valuable than the worth that those around it put on it. I think would be very difficult to draw a moral line bettween a lump of flesh with electial impluses and one with out, much like your computer in its on and off state.

Uh, the 'soul' doesn't actually exist.
It's a metaphor used by theists to represent morality.

I certainly do not have a soul.

You don't, but it that's because it's in the Massassi soul box. Not becasue you never had one.

Oh yes. :-(

Who now?

Because these things can be observed. Consciousness is one of the very last things to devellop on a fetus. Motor functions are develloped during the neurula stage, way before consciousness appears.

And how would you know that?

Flexor, how I don't think conciseness is a very good definition of life. I mean, are we not human when we're sleeping? I know we're concise when we're dreaming, but there are long periods of deep sleep where we don't think.

I understand your point, but you still can't say when consciousness develops. Hell, how do you know if a newborn baby has conciousness? Plus, babies can be born month early and still survive.

subconscious is still the same thing, just slightly different

/too much wine with dad, may be makin g that up

You know, from your position that's not a very safe argument to use so frequently.

/me shakes Thrawn42689's hand vigourously

No, that's how you start to bring the subconscious to the surface. :p

*hic!*

/cliche and knows it and lives it!

:p

Wait... why not? Like I said, it can be observed. If there's no cortex activity, there's no consciousness, it's simple.



Because by the time they're born naturally, their conscience is fully develloped. As for babies born before their time, well I don't really know how far back through devellopment modern medicine allows us to keep these babies alive, but it can't really be too long. I've seen smaller babies survived, but babies not completely formed? That's a long shot.

Well, Flexor, if you agree that all life is just chemical reactions, then why value it so much? We're just an organised group of cells with a few more reactions than a fetus.

True. We value life because we're programmed to ensure our own survival, but in truth, if the earth would just suddenly explode, what difference would it make in the universe?

Agreed.

I think it's quite natural to consider human life superior to other lifeforms. Whether or not it is superior is another issue, cockroaches or mosquitos are probably the most succesful creatures on the planet. Of course the foetus is alive. Those cells are alive, they are living organisms in their own right. It just isn't human life. I think for simple collective survival, it is necessary to consider human life superior (and therefor more valuable) than other forms of life. Nothing could survive by considering all lifeforms as 'equals'.

And why not? Because some court ruled that they're not? We're going in circles here.

Hi
*sigh* I was showing that isn't possible to say something like that by just using theoretical analysis(poor people get the worst lawyers so that must mean they get the worst punishments). A statement like that is not justifiable in this situation due to multiple other factors in court, personal beliefs(of judge or jury), or any other influence. Having the perfect conditions for poor people to be sent to death consistently more often than rich people would be very hard and plain surface analysis can not prove either way. And I never conceded that "most people put to death are those that public defendants". If someone were to exaggerate what I said, that is going in the opposite direction. I said that most people with public defenders are already through the system at the point of trial because plea bargaining is the main way public defenders resolve cases. As can be seen by the 2%, and even hired attornies are included in that as well.

I haven't known you to joke in debates so I thought you were being serious. Btw, even though it isn't in the dictionary homophony(at this point I'm not sure if it's the same word as Homophone or not) goes deeper than spelling and into meanings. I can reference a linguistics book. Why I care, I don't know. English classes just tend to make me more anal about language.
Erm, even non-captial cases can have court appointed lawyers. I'm not sure if I read that wrong or not.
As for everything else you said, I'm satisfied.

Most of the attitudes on this thread (with the exception of fishstickz and one or two others) are appalling and frighteningly ignorant - and I'm not claiming to know that much more, because I haven't been following the case that closely. But I do know that Peterson was convicted almost entirely by circumstantial evidence, and to give someone the death penalty (much less even convict them) for the amount of evidence presented is simply ridiculous.

Why doesn't anyone mention the juror who asked to be dismissed after deliberations had began, because the rest of the jury basically sat there and said "he's guilty and we know he's guilty" without any explanation - he refused to be a part of it, because it was utterly ridiculous. Do you know what the jury said afterward? "He showed no emotion." If that isn't a damning indictment of the current US legal system, I don't know what is.. believe it or not, there are people who have a grim countenance and rarely, if ever, show emotion. God help any of those people who mistakenly get accused for a crime - if they aren't convicted and sentenced, it will be either a miracle or a lucky coincidence.

I can't say if he's guilty or not - I have no idea. Frankly, I don't think the jury could possibly decide that either, but that's the system we live in..

You know, with our court system today, with even the crappiest of lawyers, it's near impossible for someone who didn't do a crime to get convicted. Plus, with the advanced methods of crime solving we have, by the time it gets to the courts, the police know who did it. They're on our side you know. They don't try to convict people who they think didn’t do something.

Well said.
/me huggles Jipe.