I've been very slow responding. I sure like the Forum that way.

> > I don't think rights can be tied to sentience. What about people in comas, or people who are severely mentally retarded to the point where they will never be more than vegetables?
> >
> > I think normal people agree that all humans have rights, but then we have to start defining humanity.
>
> Consider; is your view of where "animal nature" ends, and humanity begins, tempered by your awareness (and experience) that some people under palliative care are little more than animals or vegetables in their final days? How would you take a stab at defining "humanity"?

I thought about it a lot more and I am still unable to find a definition that has no significant loopholes. There are infinite What-If's.

The most obvious place for me to begin is that humans are those animals imbued with souls. However, not everyone believes in souls' existence, so another measure is almost required. Somebody always suggests defining humanity as having at least a certain percentage of specified DNA. My problem with this is that I would accept a severely mutated human, a sentient member of another species, or even a true artificial intelligence as deserving of the same rights as regular humans. My best shot so far is "anyone who has, can, will, or might experience agape (choose to love) deserves human rights."

> And just to tie this thread back to the original set of controversies...
> I am troubled by whether the bare difference between killing (active euthanasia) and letting die "naturally" produces a significant moral difference. Letting die "naturally" is *passive euthanasia* -- through the withholding of heroic life-saving methods from a person who is thought will "eventually die anyway, and for whom artificial prolongation of life needlessly increases their total suffering". I am not certain, however, that a Christian recognizing the sanctity of life can rationalize even passive euthanasia of a dying relative, ultimately. Even if they are in an extremis of anguish that not even heavy-duty pain-killers like demerol can effectively erase?

Speaking as a Christian, Why fear death? What comes afterward is infinitely better. If anything, be excited and overjoyed. The only downside is not seeing loved ones for a few years until they die (and finally start living) too. For those who don't believe in the afterlife, it really doesn't matter. Nothing would.

Morally, though, I think there is a substantial difference between activity and passivity in this case. To my knowledge, dying itself is not considered an evil act in any culture. Murder (killing not done in self-defense) is condemned in many places.

Hmm. I didn't expect to go blank right there. I guess that's enough, though.

gab"watching Olympics closing ceremony"by