Another

So, in discussing how we measure a person (and by discussing I mean, I started out asking questions and Del and GG answered), I determined I hadn't gone about the idea I had in mind the right way.

So here's another go around.

If you were to define the concept "a good person," how would you define it?

A good person is...

?

A short one

How do you measure someone's worth?

By what they've done?
By what they could do?
By the values they espouse?
By qualities they possess?

Or by something else?

I live!

OK.

So, new posts shall begin. Starting now.

...
...
...


But with nothing much to say, how's about just a joke.


Joe and Dave are hunting when Dave keels over. Frantic, Joe dials 911 on his cell phone and blurts, "My friend just dropped dead! What should I do?"
A soothing voice at the other end says, "Don't worry, I can help. First, let's make sure he's really dead."
After a brief silence, the operator hears a shot. Then Joe comes back to the phone. "Okay," he says nervously to the operator. "What do I do next?"

Is It Ever Too Late...

...to apologize?

For not blogging for 5 months?

For a wrong done to someone 5 years ago?

For a wrong done 10 years ago?

What about 20 years ago?

Is there a point in time in which it is too late to apologize for something?

Does it matter what the thing is, whether it's major or minor?

Shamelessly Stolen From G

So, one of my high school friends - a really great photographer btw - has a blog. I won't share it as I dunno if she'd like that. But I was reading today's post, and it was really interesting, so I stole it, re-branded it and posted it here. And now.


If you had to sum up your life in 6 words, what would those words be?

The idea comes from this site, which is based off of a book that was newly released. The book (and website) is a collection of random people and their 6 words. Some are funny, some are poignant, some are weird. But they're all very interesting.

So, if you had to write your six words, what would they be?


I'm still working on mine. I will post it when I come up with it.

Perceptions

How do you know when your perceptions are accurate and right?

Hypothetical:

5 people and 1 supervisor (for a total of 6 people) are involved in a project to create something - a widget. At the end of one stage in the project, 2 of the participants have the perception that the project leader is acting unfairly and giving some voices more weight than other voices (their voices). The other 3 participants feel that the project is being handled fairly and equitably.
How do any of the parties know their perception or feeling is right?


More information:

The supervisor asks for everyone's opinion and gives each party equal time to talk. He never criticizes anyone, but instead encourages people to talk. However, the resulting widget has more taken from the three participants than from the 2 complaining participants.


Would that sway your opinion as to whose perception is right/accurate?



Different facts:

The supervisor controls who talks when and for how long. He limits some participants from talking while giving other participants free rein to talk as much as they want. The 2 participants who feel the project is unfairly done were the people who had limited speaking time. The widget still takes more from the three participants than from the 2 participants.


If these different facts were given, would you change your mind?

Or do you take the zen position, that everyone's perceptions are right and accurate?
_____

It just seems difficult to know which perceptions are right and which are biased because of your outlook/history/current situation. And it becomes more difficult to know which perceptions are valid when, in a group situation, most of the group disagrees with your perception.

Your comments are appreciated.

Picking up where we left off

Skewbie sent me an email about human-ness, and reminded me that I hadn't picked up where I left off. So here's me, picking the discussion back up, brushing it off, and seeing whether time has make wine from the grapes of my thoughts.

Before, I had come to the conclusion that, to pick at this concept of right to life in fetuses (fetii?) I had to either say that rights like the right to life aren't granted right away OR the right to life isn't a fundamental right OR that there was some superseding reason that overcame the fetus' right to life in the womb.

If we assume for the purposes of the argument that there is a fundamental right to life (which I am not convinced that there is [death penalty]) and we assume that the baby gets the right to life from conception (which I'm not sure I agree with), then all we're left with is the idea that there must be something else that legally overcomes the baby's right to life.

One of the big arguments is that the life of the mother can take precedent over the life of the fetus if the mother's life is in danger. Most of the States' abortion laws leave the exception for life of the mother - some even include the general health of the mother.

So that seems to be a universally accepted superseding reason to deny a fetus the fundamental right to life.

Are there other reasons? Some people argue that the fetus is a part of the mother's body, and as such the mother has the right to do with it as she pleases. Almost a fetus-as-property argument. If the mother "owns" the fetus just as she "owns" her body, then the fetus' right to life is not yet developed to a point of overtaking the mother's interest in her body. Looking at this idea, though, I could bring out a probably-ridiculous idea: does one Siamese twin have a greater interest in the shared body than the other Siamese twin? If there is this idea of "my body, my business" then where does the law draw the line? Does it help that both twins are of the same developmental stage at the same time?

Other people argue that the baby will be developmentally disabled or fatally disabled and so would not live beyond a few days/would live a half life/would live a life of extreme suffering, and so the mother is doing the baby and everyone involved a favor (that sounds insensitive, I know, but I mean it in the best sense) and sparing them the misery and suffering. I'm not sure what the legal phrase for this is. It almost sounds like an argument that could be used for assisted suicide, another sticky spot in the law.

I can't think of any other reasons people have for saying the rights of the mother supersede the right to life of the fetus (if it has one). If you have another reason why the fundamental right of the fetus to live should be trumped, sound off. I'm sure there are reasons I've forgotten.


Finally, I want to link the article I was sent that reminded me to get back on this. This article suggests that life is more of a sort of continuum, and that it's tough to say where a human life begins. And I feel like the author is making a distinction between biological "life" and legal "life".

But, the article does say - unless I am misreading it - that the little zygote is not human.

"I'm also confident that the freshly fertilized zygote is not human, either. There's more to being human than bearing a cell with the right collection of genes."

So maybe our definition of human needs another look at. Not now, but sometime down the road...