Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Mark Robert Hopkins, post: 229144, member: 139485"] PAUL: [indent] Actually, what I meant was should they be considered as full-living human beings? Your "rights" translation was a good one, too. It was used as a comparative analogy. The first is a loaded statement, Paul, as many people [i]do[/i] refer to foetuses as people, just [i]unborn[/i] people. By the way, the term "unborn people" is [i]not[/i] a redundancy and is an [i]actuality[/i] [indent] If one is born dead (usually prematurely), it is sometimes still called a [i]foetus[/i] by some medical personnel, although I won't say I confirm it, only that I have heard as such. So [i]pre-born[/i] or [i]unborn foetus[/i], is a distinction of one that hasn't yet been born. If this term is inappropriate, why is it used all the time? And, yes, I agree with laying off the issue, but like any other, a touchy subject is bound to jump in every now and then. Mine was an off-the-cuff reference, that's all, and not meant to start a debate. I stop it here. [indent] Yes, I know that, Paul, but this is a public forum, and as such [i]anyone[/i] can respond to anything posted. That's the nature of a public forum. As for me, my comparison is my own, unrelated to anything you or Jeff might have said. Jeff made one point, and I made another. Now, let's get back on track. We were talking salvage and how to treat places of the dead . . . BILL: [indent] As an academic myself I can appreciate this. I approach such experiences with a blend of awe and intrigue toward the unknown. Being both respectfully careful and curious at the same time allows me to weigh the significance of such things in more than one light at the same time. BOB: [indent] Wasn't confused, but I [i]was[/i] in a hurry, which is why I spot-replied today instead of reading everything through first. Normally, I do just that. [indent] The reference was to your encouragement for me to speak up without having to worry about offending anyone. I was merely acknowledging that. JEFF: [indent] This is where there are remains to recover so that they may be buried at another designated place, perhaps one selected by the family. In the case with Titanic, such shoes and boots [i]are[/i] legitimate remains of a body, [i]but[/i] one doesn't normally bury shoes or boots in a grave by themselves. This is one of the important questions regarding Titanic salvage: Should shoes and boots be considered human remains, despite the fact that they are not actually part of what was once a living organism? They are, at least, an indicator of where a human once lay. Again, perhaps that consideration should be left to the perspective of the individual. Physically, they are shoes/boots, but on a human level . . .[/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent] [/QUOTE]

Verification: In which year did the Titanic sail?