[helene_t]

Quote

until they die from "natural" causes - like liver failure (in this case the failure to have a liver any longer.)

Like the Monty Python sketch:
A: G'day. are you mr Smith? We're here to remove your liver. According to the organ donor registration you agreed to donate your liver
B: But that was in case of my death !?!?!?!?!?!?
A: Don't worry, nobody has ever survived having their liver removed

Quote

would you WANT to have Ted Bundy's liver? or anything else?

Yes. Have you seen the Chinese "Bodies" exhibition? They expose real human boddies and body parts, from the entire vascular system (with everything else removed) to thin slices of a human body, preserved in some hi-tech way (don't know the details. It's really facinating. Most things your not allowed to touch. But they had a leg muscle, a kidney and - yes - a liver which you were allowed to touch. The liver and the kidney were rather hard, the leg musscle more like soft rubber.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Jan 3 2007, 02:40 AM, said:

However, another part of the post is a good question - is there a point with sociopaths when they could be deemed sub-human?

Semantics, seschmantics. Whether the death penalty is a good thing is one issue. How a Homo Sapiens should be defined is another issue. It's a surprisingly common falacy to think that the two are related.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Jan 4 2007, 04:52 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 3 2007, 02:40 AM, said:

However, another part of the post is a good question - is there a point with sociopaths when they could be deemed sub-human?

Semantics, seschmantics. Whether the death penalty is a good thing is one issue. How a Homo Sapiens should be defined is another issue. It's a surprisingly common falacy to think that the two are related.

good point, helene... i for one would hate to be accused of being an anti-semantic