----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 12:28 PM Subject: Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
> Dan said: > > > Let's use that arguement. What about infants? The intellectual > > functional ability of a 8 week premature baby is certainly not > > functioanlly equivalent to even a full term infant. Indeed, one > > could make a strong arguement that an adult chimp functions at a > > superior level than a premature infant. Thus, since it is not > > murder to kill the chimp, it is not murder to kill the premature > > infant...since potential doesn't count. > > Personally, I would push the boundary out to include great apes in the > category of things protected from murder. Certainly, I think adult > chimps, human infants and premature babies are not things that it > should be possible to kill if one so wishes. But equally, I think that > blastocysts are not something that should be protected from > destruction. Where the boundary should be, however, I do not know. > > [Human-chimp hybrids] > > > Isn't this just Zeno's paradox? > > No, it's not just Zeno's paradox. In fact, I'm not sure I see the > analogy between my thought experiment and Zeno's paradox. You argue from infintesmals...since one cannot exactly define the dividing line, it doesn't exist. But, in reality of course, the cluster in gene space that defines humans is a number of SD away from the cluster than defines the closest apes. >It is, > instead, an attempt to demolish the essentialist view of humanity that > JDG is using. It seems to me that even if one thinks that everything > from fertilised ova on up is a human being, one could not equally well > claim that everything from the 99% (or 99.9% or 99.99%) hybrid outwards > towards chimps is human, No, one only has to use the following. A fertilized ova fits well with the boundaries of human gene space. Other animals are many SD away from that cluster. Further, if we follow the natural progression of a fertalized ova, if it doesn't die it becomes an adult human. Since you argued that you fit premature infants and great apes in the same bucket, due to their present functionality, let us review what the instantaneous functionality of the premature infant is. It shows less social ability than an adult wolf, for example. It's brain size is smaller than a number of animals....about a factor of 10 smaller than an elephant. Thus, shouldn't all animals with greater functionality and bigger brains than a premature infant be considered more human than a premature infant? The answer for me is obvious. Future potential as well as present capabilities need to be considered when we understand things. We often think about things in terms of what they were and will be instead of just their status at this split second. Dan M. and that the criterion for human-ness (or at > least for the granting of various legal rights) must in this case be a > functional one in some sense. I would be interested to see where and > how JDG positions this boundary (or series of boundaries). > > Rich > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
