From: cboeker@batph78.bnr.ca (Craig Boeker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:40:47 GMT
Reply-To: cboeker@bnr.ca
Distribution: na
Organization: BNR Atlanta


I probably shouldn't do this and will probably end up regretting it as I
am just passing through this group but I couldn't resist putting in my
2 cents on this article.

In article <BvBpq1.7o@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
|> 
|> Russell Lawrence writes:
|> rl> I'm still waiting for to to explain why it's ok for you to kill a 
|> rl> brain-dead man, but not ok for you to kill a kidney-dead man.   
|> 
|> From article <1992Sep29.004722.3946@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
|> ry> And I'm waiting for you to provide any evidence whatsoever that I
|> ry> have made this claim.
|> ry> 
|> ry> In fact, in <1992Aug22.175923.25363@pixel.kodak.com>, I made it
|> ry> specifically clear that this was NOT my position.  That was back
|> ry> in AUGUST, Russell...were you hoping I'd forget?  I told you before,
|> ry> if you're going to pull this kind of intellectual chicanery, take it
|> ry> to e-mail.
|> 
|> Why is it "ok" for Rich Young to kill a brain-dead comatose human?
|> 
|> Here are some revealing responses from the keyboard of Rich Young:
|> 

OK, the following excerpts should show that Rich Young feels it is "ok"
to kill a brain-dead comatose human.  Let's take a look . . .

|> In article <1992Aug15.171902.25559@pixel.kodak.com>, you wrote:
|> ======================================================================
|> The phrase "brain-DEAD" [emphasis added] sums it up quite nicely:
|> he's not really "alive".  His major sensory processing center has
|> ceased to function.   

Rich seems to claim that a brain-dead human is not really alive. OK,
that's a solid position.  No mention of killing that human.

|> ======================================================================
|> 
|> In article <1992Aug18.114943.27150@pixel.kodak.com>, you wrote:
|> ======================================================================
|> As for the imagined contradiction you wish to clarify, the loss of
|> the "sensory processing center" precludes the unaided existence of the
|> organism, as would failure of liver, kidneys, or heart.  
 
Rich seems to claim that the loss of the "sensory processing center"
(I'll assume this means brain-dead) or kidneys (as well as other organs)
prevents continued unaided existance of the organism.  Again a solid
position having nothing to do with killing.

|> ======================================================================
|> 
|> In article <1992Aug22.175923.25363@pixel.kodak.com>, you wrote:
|> ======================================================================
|> Let me say it another way: a brain-dead human is a fatally flawed 
|> organism, the carrot is a functional organism removed to a 
|> hostile environment.  

Rich seems to say that a brain-dead human is a non-functional organism
while a carrot is a functional organism.  Seems like a pretty safe statement.

|> ======================================================================
|> 
|> In article <1992Aug24.231123.4519@pixel.kodak.com>, you wrote:
|> ======================================================================
|> Let me try to explain this once again.  To the cosmos, a brain-dead,
|> or kidney deficient, or liver-failed, etc., human is effectively
|> dead.  It is a non-functional organism.  It doesn't matter what
|> that person might mean to you or me: in the "Big Picture" of things,
|> the organism in question no longer exists.  It is, therefore,
|> irrelevant to my point.  There is, however, a cosmic difference
|> between "alive" and "not-alive", and sapience/sentience is merely
|> an arbitrary sub-set of that distinction.

Rich seems to be saying a brain-dead or kidney deficient human is
effectively dead.

|> ======================================================================
|> 
|> I'm still waiting for to to explain why it's ok for you to kill a 
|> brain-dead man, but not ok for you to kill a kidney-dead man.   
|> 

Lets review the points from the Rich Young quotes:

* A brain-dead human is not really alive.
* A brain-dead or kidney deficient organism cannot continue to live without
    external assistance.
* A brain-dead human is a non-functional organism.
* A carrot (apparently when pulled from the ground) is still a functional 
    organism.
* A brain-dead or kidney deficient human is effectively dead.

All these statements seem quite reasonable to me.  Now how do you
extract Rich feeling it's OK to kill a brain-dead human but not a
kidney-dead human from this information?  I'm really quite interested
and will subscribe to this group for a while to find out how that
works out.

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Craig Boeker                                                              |
| cboeker@bnr.ca        It was like that when I got here.                   |
| BNR Atlanta                                                               |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+