Obviously, Terri was a human, biologically speaking. She certainly belonged to no other species. Nevertheless, was she functioning as a human being with regard to our most important, most biologically transcending, qualities?
Deepak Chora was on one of the tv stations and they asked him about Terri, and he said Terri Schiavo was still moving, but not alive anymore, because her spirit left her body. She was just a shell of nerves reacting to stuff, not really her.
I'm not saying I follow or believe in Deepak, I'm just telling you guys what he said.
For me...
if i was in charge of pulling the plug or not, I would pull it.
For me, life is either being cognizent(sp) of who you are or what you could be or understanding things around you, you know, brain conscious. They said she didn't even have a chance for a recovery, so I'd pull the plug.
Ofcourse if some magical wonder of science came along and they start bringing people back to consciousness where they can grasp or understand things around them, similar people like in Terri's case, I'm going to be like, "ohhhhh maaaan!! I made a mistake!!"
Until then though, I'd pull it.
Yeah, it definitely changes over time
but what we recognize as a "human being" is really just a popularity contest.
Whatever we feel like doing at the time.
If we're stretched to our limits and can't deal with a
crisis situation . . . we say "they are dead already".
If we absolutely hate someone, "you are so dead!"
If we don't like a particular race, creed, culture, or demographic . . . we
dehumanize those people so it's easier for us to enslave, abuse, or even kill them.
"They eat babies! They are NOT human beings!"
"They can't feel pain. They're not even human."
Are small-minded people less human? Are
Great Thinkers somehow more human?
It changes a bit by the subject, but mostly by our own needs.
A popularity contest.
So, as we get better and better at taking care of our SELVES . . . the definition
of "human being" will naturally expand to include more and more things.
As we have confidence in ourselves, all races will be "human".
A person with a memory chip implant will still be "human".
And then, a person with genetically engineered gills will be acceptable.
If two people are able to mind-link into a single, functioning brain, we will call
the composite entity "a" human being.
As one person's senses and consciousness start to be located in multiple
places, spread across many chips, organs, spinal cords or what-have-you
then a "human being" will gradually embrace what was previously unacceptable.
But the tendency is to gradually expand the definition of "self".
Is your fingernail part of "you" even though it's mostly dead?
Are they necessary, or just contributory?
Are your clothes "you"? When you drive a car, do you behave differently,
as if you actually ARE a two-ton metal being, aggressively competing
with others of your kind? If a neighbors dog goes on your doorstep,
do you take it personally, as if it was done to "you"?
Our self-identity seems to be part of the definition.
The more we perceive, want, influence, control, and exist through these things . . .
then more of these things are considered part of us,
part of our "human being".
If Terri Shiavo did not perceive and want the same things we did . . .
is she really one of us?
Or can our own perceptions and awareness take into account her
unique senses and experience? How big do you think you really are?
How much of me ... in Florida, died?
-------
"She's still communicating, she's still responding. She's emaciated, but she's responsive,"...
