Dan Minette wrote:
Behalf Of Deborah Harrell
Dan
some snippage
grin And I was refusing to have my pro-choice
stance
deny _any_ protection to the unborn (teratogens
etc.)
OK, fine. Then the question on the table should be
who is a protected person being and what is not.
As your
Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Behalf Of Deborah Harrell
Dan Minette wrote:
DanM wrote:
much snippage ditto!
...The thesis is that the mother and
society owe the child at least a chance at life.
For a right-to-life
person, every child has an inalienable right to
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Deborah Harrell
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 5:34 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
grin And I was refusing to have my pro-choice
On 5 Aug 2006, at 11:59PM, Dan Minette wrote:
If a women died trying to abort in a back alley, that is certainly
a human
death. But, from the right-to-life movement's perspective, 500
deaths of
women attempting abortion must be weighted against the deaths of
millions of
people when women
At 08:01 PM Saturday 8/5/2006, William T Goodall wrote:
On 5 Aug 2006, at 11:59PM, Dan Minette wrote:
If a women died trying to abort in a back alley, that is certainly
a human
death. But, from the right-to-life movement's perspective, 500
deaths of
women attempting abortion must be weighted
On 6 Aug 2006, at 2:06AM, Dan Minette wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of William T Goodall
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 8:01 PM
Isn't the real question about whether the state owns one's body or
oneself? And how
Dan Minette wrote:
Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different
from men, premature infants display less cognitive ability than some
grown non-human primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as
killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. It's
Again, with the
responding-to-a-post-withour-reading-the-entire-thread
thing; but it could take days for me to get through it
all, so here goes:
Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DanM wrote:
much snippage
No-one owes pro-lifers them anything. The thesis is
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For a right-to-life
person, every child has an inalienable right to
life. The only possible
exception is when their right to life conflicts with
the right to life of
the mother. The mother's health is important, of
course, but not as
critical as
-- PAT MATHEWS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hey, Pat -- this is actually my quoting of Dan, not my
own opinion:
For a right-to-life
person, every child has an inalienable right to
life. The only possible
exception is when their right to life
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Deborah Harrell
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:30 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Again, with the
responding-to-a-post-withour
On 04/08/2006, at 8:59 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
If one accepts - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or
15-week fetus is not an infant or a child.
Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different
from men,
premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown
On 4 Aug 2006, at 12:10AM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 04/08/2006, at 8:59 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
If one accepts - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or
15-week fetus is not an infant or a child.
Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different
from men,
premature infants
On 04/08/2006, at 9:20 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are
different from men,
premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown
non-human
primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an
adult is,
and just
Not even strident ones. Many people believe that our fellow great
apes deserve more consideration (limited human rights, if you
will), than, say, cows.
I have nothing against the great apes but why demote the cows to make the
apes feel better?
Ritu
GCU From Sacred to Less Than 'Limited Human
Julia Thompson wrote:
1) Not all people are suitable for parenthood. It's not easy. I
have respect for people who decide that they're not going to be as
good at parenting as their children would deserve.
2) If you decide you want a child, you'd better be prepared for the
possibility of
David Hobby wrote:
Agnostic, but Atheist if pushed. I take most insects
out of the house without killing them. Why? Because
it's easy to do, and might reduce suffering.
My cousin the entomologist would catch flies in his hand and toss them
out the window still alive.
The only flying
Brother John wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
1) Not all people are suitable for parenthood. It's not easy. I
have respect for people who decide that they're not going to be as
good at parenting as their children would deserve.
2) If you decide you want a child, you'd better be prepared for
Julia Thompson wrote:
David Hobby wrote:
Agnostic, but Atheist if pushed. I take most insects
out of the house without killing them. Why? Because
it's easy to do, and might reduce suffering.
My cousin the entomologist would catch flies in his hand and toss them
out the window still
Julia Thompson wrote:
Brother John wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
1) Not all people are suitable for parenthood. It's not easy. I
have respect for people who decide that they're not going to be as
good at parenting as their children would deserve.
2) If you decide you want a child, you'd
Brother John wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
Gary Denton wrote:
He reasoned that the Supreme Court could not make it fertilization as
that would make most Americans guilty of murder as birth control
pills work by preventing fertilized eggs from attaching to the
uterine wall. It would not be the
Brother John wrote:
Why would any adult not want to have children?
There are probably a thousand or more valid reasons the most basic of
which is that we are all individuals with varying needs, desires and
capabilities
Are they not a source of almost infinite joy in the lives of those who
On 31/07/2006, at 3:34 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
To me they are, to others they are an unwanted burden. Still
others are indifferent. How many women in the past were having
babies not because they wanted them but because it was their duty?
Or because their husband/master/owner wanted
Charlie wrote:
Or because their husband/master/owner wanted a shag, and babies were
the side-effect of that.
Exactly. The Idea of some past golden age is a crock.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brother John said:
Why would any adult not want to have children? Are they not a
source of almost infinite joy in the lives of those who have them?
Are they not great treasures? To pass up a chance for a child is
like walking by a 100 dollar bill on the sidewalk and not leaning
down
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the debate in the States has become *so* polarised that
it's difficult to explore nuance. As Dan's caricature of
the pro-
choice position showed.
I must have missed that, but I find it hard to believe that Dan
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is why we'll never agree. Being human is about expressing
humanity, not about chromosome number, or genetic engineering, or
symbiosis, or phenotypic modification. It's about language,
society,
culture, art, curiosity,
On 29/07/2006, at 10:45 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
Well, now you've left me confused. Neither a 1-month old infant,
nor a 7-month unborn child are capable of either of those things,
and you clearly consider them to be human. So, there clearly is
something else at work in defining humanity for
Richard Baker wrote:
Brother John said:
Why would any adult not want to have children? Are they not a source
of almost infinite joy in the lives of those who have them? Are they
not great treasures? To pass up a chance for a child is like walking
by a 100 dollar bill on the sidewalk and not
On 7/26/06, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Jul 2006, at 11:15PM, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
Wasn't there a Sci-fi book about that? Yes, there was. The main
character had to go find out what happened to his planet's
shipment of artificial wombs that hadn't arrived, so his
David Hobby wrote:
Welcome back. I think you're missing Charlie's point.
To me, his argument is that it is VERY hard to draw a clear
line between things that can turn into adult humans and things
that can't. I advise conceding the point, unless you just
like to argue for the fun of it. : )
Julia Thompson wrote:
Gary Denton wrote:
He reasoned that the Supreme Court could not make it fertilization as
that would make most Americans guilty of murder as birth control
pills work by preventing fertilized eggs from attaching to the
uterine wall. It would not be the attachment to the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
]]
]]If Biological Law is the survival of the more fit, then we
]]don't obey this Law. Sometimes, what happens is the survival of
]]the _less_ fit.
]
]Biologic laws are not like the laws of physics (at least not superficially).
I've heard
At 02:34 AM Thursday 7/27/2006, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Biologic laws are not like the laws of physics (at least
not superficially).
I've heard of one that *is* like the laws of physics: it states that
the pile of solid waste that an animal might leave behind cannot
On 27/07/2006, at 7:00 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 02:34 AM Thursday 7/27/2006, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Biologic laws are not like the laws of physics (at least not
superficially).
I've heard of one that *is* like the laws of physics: it states that
the pile of
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The definition I gave (interbreding
populations)
Doesn't this definition fail to account for species that reproduce
asexually?
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 27/07/2006, at 9:23 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The definition I gave (interbreding
populations)
Doesn't this definition fail to account for species that reproduce
asexually?
Somebody needs to read ahead before replying... ;-)
Charlie
In a message dated 7/26/2006 10:27:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyway, the Biological Species Concept, as with every single other
way of defining species, has weaknesses. With this one, it's that it
assumes sexual reproduction, so asexual organisms are hard
In a message dated 7/27/2006 7:33:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doesn't this definition fail to account for species that reproduce
asexually?
Very few plant and animal species reproduce asexually of course. Some
reproduce asexually some of the time but very
On 28/07/2006, at 10:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another problem is that members of a species may never have an
opportunity
to interbreed.
That's not so much of a problem - if there are two distinct breeding
groups that are separated, they can be considered separate species
even
Charlie Bell wrote:
Very easily. _Homo technologia_ could be the next step,
if they form a separate breeding group from baseline humans.
Yes, and this separate breed will have no males :-P
Species change and branch and fade. That's how it is.
Ok.
We're not any different,
No, we _are_
On 26/07/2006, at 8:42 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Very easily. _Homo technologia_ could be the next step,
if they form a separate breeding group from baseline humans.
Yes, and this separate breed will have no males :-P
Species change and branch and fade. That's how
Charlie Bell wrote:
We're not any different,
No, we _are_ different.
Species change and branch and fade, including us.
nor are we subjected to different biological or physical
laws to any other animal.
Physical, yes. Biological, no.
Huh? Do you mean what you said, or do you mean
Alberto said:
If Biological Law is the survival of the more fit, then we
don't obey this Law. Sometimes, what happens is the survival of
the _less_ fit.
In particular situations that's always been the case: sometimes the
fitter get unlucky and sometimes the less fit get lucky. It's all a
Richard Baker wrote:
If Biological Law is the survival of the more fit, then we
don't obey this Law. Sometimes, what happens is the survival of
the _less_ fit.
In particular situations that's always been the case: sometimes the
fitter get unlucky and sometimes the less fit get lucky. It's
On 26/07/2006, at 9:06 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Physical, yes. Biological, no.
Huh? Do you mean what you said, or do you mean Physical, I agree,
Biological I don't.
Yes - but I think I said that. Didn't I? What did I say?
I wasn't sure, that's why I asked.
The evolutionary
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So souls can be combined as well as created? Or do identical twins share a
soul?
The ones I have met have each had their own soul, and from all accounts,
that's even true of conjoined twins. The rule may be, one soul per
functioning head.
Pat
Pat said:
The ones I have met have each had their own soul, and from all accounts,
that's even true of conjoined twins. The rule may be, one soul per
functioning head.
How can you tell the difference between something that looks like a
person and has a soul and something that looks like a
From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pat said:
The ones I have met have each had their own soul, and from all accounts,
that's even true of conjoined twins. The rule may be, one soul per
functioning head.
How can you tell the difference between something that looks like a
person and
Charlie Bell wrote:
On 26/07/2006, at 3:05 PM, PAT MATHEWS wrote:
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:15
Yes - I'd want abortion to be replaced with transfer of the foetus to
the artificial womb. In fact, if technology progressed so far, I
suspect many people would avoid the risk of pregnancy and childbirth
altogether.
This seems to be an entirely male perspective. I wonder how a woman would
Damon wrote:
This seems to be an entirely male perspective. I wonder how a woman
would respond...
For me, it would depend on the number of offsprings I plan on having. The
first time around, I'd definitely want to do it myself. Just to see what
the experience is like. Having experienced it,
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charlie Bell
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:15 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
The pro-choice axiom is that, before birth
On 27/07/2006, at 3:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes - I'd want abortion to be replaced with transfer of the
foetus to
the artificial womb. In fact, if technology progressed so far, I
suspect many people would avoid the risk of pregnancy and childbirth
altogether.
This seems to be an
On 27/07/2006, at 7:05 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
I also think that the idea that many people have views somewhere
between the
pro-choice set of axioms and the pro-life set of axioms is
fairly valid.
The debate I've seen doesn't reflect this. Most of it is between
people who
know their
Charlie Bell wrote:
Some people have c-sections because they can schedule them
round their yoga, or because they need to fit childbirth
into a certain period of the financial year for tax or
government incentive reasons,
The above reasons do not exist - at least here.
or to replace the
On 27/07/2006, at 8:02 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Some people have c-sections because they can schedule them
round their yoga, or because they need to fit childbirth
into a certain period of the financial year for tax or
government incentive reasons,
The above reasons
Charlie Bell wrote:
Specially if gay men decide to have children. So, maybe we will
have the hellish opposite scenario of the lesbian utopia: a world
where most people are gay men :-/
LOL
Or we'll just have a 50:50 world, where 10% of people are
homosexual. As we do now.
10%? I
On 27/07/2006, at 8:20 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Specially if gay men decide to have children. So, maybe we will
have the hellish opposite scenario of the lesbian utopia: a world
where most people are gay men :-/
LOL
Or we'll just have a 50:50 world, where 10% of
On 26/07/2006, at 10:43 PM, PAT MATHEWS wrote:
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So souls can be combined as well as created? Or do identical
twins share a soul?
The ones I have met have each had their own soul, and from all
accounts, that's even true of conjoined twins. The
On 26 Jul 2006, at 11:20PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Specially if gay men decide to have children. So, maybe we will
have the hellish opposite scenario of the lesbian utopia: a world
where most people are gay men :-/
LOL
Or we'll just have a 50:50 world, where 10% of
On 26 Jul 2006, at 11:15PM, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
Wasn't there a Sci-fi book about that? Yes, there was. The main
character had to go find out what happened to his planet's
shipment of artificial wombs that hadn't arrived, so his adventure
took him into the great wide galaxy...
_Ethan of
http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:22:29 +1000
On 26/07/2006
On 27/07/2006, at 10:04 AM, PAT MATHEWS wrote:
I wish you hadn't asked me that. I had a long-time friend who has
been in the hospital with a massive stroke for some time now. The
person in her body is like a sweet, passive small child with
amnesia. I have finally got a gut feeling for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes - I'd want abortion to be replaced with transfer of the foetus
to the artificial womb. In fact, if technology progressed so far,
I suspect many people would avoid the risk of pregnancy and
childbirth altogether.
This seems to be an entirely male perspective. I
How many pregnancies are planned, and how many are accidental?
I guess it would all depend on the technology. But whether people plan
their pregnancies around the tax season or their new-age hippie health
classes is irrelevant to the question: creating a system of artificial
iron wombs
From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I also think the idea of iron wombs cheapens the enture reproductive
process. That is my purely emotional hippie liberal opinion...
Damon.
My parents' generation was all for bottle feeding and canned goods because
they were clean, modern, sanitary,
In a message dated 7/25/2006 11:08:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My point, though, was simply that at that point they would clearly no
longer be human they would be something else, by definition.
One of the problems with your mode is thinking is the by
In a message dated 7/26/2006 7:06:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If Biological Law is the survival of the more fit, then we
don't obey this Law. Sometimes, what happens is the survival of
the _less_ fit.
Biologic laws are not like the laws of physics (at least
On 27/07/2006, at 10:49 AM, Damon Agretto wrote:
How many pregnancies are planned, and how many are accidental?
I guess it would all depend on the technology. But whether people
plan their pregnancies around the tax season or their new-age
hippie health classes is irrelevant to the
In a message dated 7/26/2006 8:46:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How can you tell the difference between something that looks like a
person and has a soul and something that looks like a person and doesn't?
Oh my god the philospher's zombie just showed up.
In a message dated 7/26/2006 10:15:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So souls can be combined as well as created? Or do identical twins share
a soul?
In addition the twining process does not take place at inception so if one
has identical twins when was the
On 27/07/2006, at 11:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the problems with your mode is thinking is the by
definition part.
This is way we used to think about species before Darwin.
...and a long way after. The Biological Species Concept was developed
through the mid-1900s, with
But whether people plan their pregnancies around the tax season or their
new-age hippie health classes is irrelevant to the question:
Yoga is a new-age hippie health class? Since when?
One of the biggest reason for C-sections over here is to ensure the time
of birth. So that the kid's
On 27/07/2006, at 1:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But whether people plan their pregnancies around the tax season or
their
new-age hippie health classes is irrelevant to the question:
Yoga is a new-age hippie health class? Since when?
One of the biggest reason for C-sections over here
Charlie said:
One of the biggest reason for C-sections over here is to ensure the
time
of birth. So that the kid's horoscope is auspicious
And there you have it. :-)
The prize for silliest possible reason? ;)
Ritu
___
On 27/07/2006, at 2:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charlie said:
One of the biggest reason for C-sections over here is to ensure the
time
of birth. So that the kid's horoscope is auspicious
And there you have it. :-)
The prize for silliest possible reason? ;)
LOL I'm sure I can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But whether people plan their pregnancies around the tax season or their
new-age hippie health classes is irrelevant to the question:
Yoga is a new-age hippie health class? Since when?
The only 2 yoga instructors I know personally are new-age hippy types.
Well,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes - I'd want abortion to be replaced with transfer of the foetus
to the artificial womb. In fact, if technology progressed so far,
I suspect many people would avoid the risk of pregnancy and
childbirth altogether.
This seems to be an entirely male
At 11:24 PM Wednesday 7/26/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But whether people plan their pregnancies around the tax season or their
new-age hippie health classes is irrelevant to the question:
Yoga is a new-age hippie health class? Since when?
The only 2 yoga instructors
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:24 PM Wednesday 7/26/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But whether people plan their pregnancies around the tax season or
their
new-age hippie health classes is irrelevant to the question:
Yoga is a new-age hippie health class? Since when?
On 7/23/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/07/2006, at 12:01 PM, David Hobby wrote:
Welcome back. I think you're missing Charlie's point.
To me, his argument is that it is VERY hard to draw a clear
line between things that can turn into adult humans and things
that can't. I
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So if individual angels are so small that nonstandard analysis is needed to
deal with them, why do they make so bloody much noise bowling? Midnight
hates it and ducks under the table (where he can feel sort of protected
from above while still being
David Hobby wrote:
Yes, that's the kind of thing I was thinking of. Alberto
was talking about probability. Since all probabilities
sum to one, that might well imply that each god got
probability zero.
No, there may be infinite a priori gods, but they can
form a converging sequence, like
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:03 PM Sunday 7/23/2006, maru dubshinki wrote:
~maru
we can clearly through a simple diagonal argument along the lines of
cantor that the number of angels is uncountable, and thus the number
of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is the same number as
the
JDG said:
How terribly disappointing. How anyone could consider a half-cell
to be human is beyond me.
Sperm and ova aren't half cells. They are whole cells.
Now, here's a question. Suppose we have a fertilised human ovum in a
test tube and some other human cell in another test tube, and
Charlie said:
It's been done with other mammals, and I wouldn't be at all
surprised if there aren't a handful of chimeric humans out there.
Apparently 8% of fraternal twins are blood chimerae because of cell
exchange through a shared placenta. There are various other kinds of
recorded
On 26/07/2006, at 3:35 AM, Richard Baker wrote:
Charlie said:
It's been done with other mammals, and I wouldn't be at all
surprised if there aren't a handful of chimeric humans out there.
Apparently 8% of fraternal twins are blood chimerae because of
cell exchange through a shared
At 08:31 AM Tuesday 7/25/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:03 PM Sunday 7/23/2006, maru dubshinki wrote:
~maru
we can clearly through a simple diagonal argument along the lines of
cantor that the number of angels is uncountable, and thus the number
of angels that can
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very interesting ones, but
indisputably human.
You use that word indisputably, but doesn't the fact that a new
species name has been proposed *by definition* imply that at least one
person believes the HeLa to be non-human? After
In a message dated 7/24/2006 11:05:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is an argument that as they are independent and an immortal
cell line, that they could be considered an example of a speciation
event, but all that means is that we've chosen to call them
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Robert Sawyer's *Mindscan* he postulates that when Roe v. Wade
is overturned the definition of human life the Supreme Court
adopts is individualization., two weeks after fertilization.
[lengthy reasoning deleted]
Of course, one
In a message dated 7/25/2006 12:22:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, it's murder to kill a twin... if they've been born. But look at
the developmental mess that twinning can result in, and the ethical
conundra that result. Conjoined twins, parasitic twins.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's something else to being human, and
it's to do with our minds not our bodies.
Conjoined twins, parasitic twins. See you
avoided the rest. They're uncomfortable thoughts, aren't they,
but it's not science fiction.
On 26/07/2006, at 11:30 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very interesting ones, but
indisputably human.
You use that word indisputably, but doesn't the fact that a new
species name has been proposed *by definition* imply that at least one
On 26/07/2006, at 11:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would think that by the standard definition of a species a cell line
cannot qualify. A species is a group of individuals who can or do
interbreed. I
don't know how a cell culture can qualify a species.
They're free living (on
At 08:30 PM Tuesday 7/25/2006, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very interesting ones, but
indisputably human.
You use that word indisputably, but doesn't the fact that a new
species name has been proposed *by definition* imply that at least
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After all, how can you
propose a new species name for humanity?
Very easily. _Homo technologia_ could be the next step, if they
form
a separate breeding group from baseline humans.
Or Homo symbioticus (or whatever the name
jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure we'll eventually be able to clone humans from single
cells.
Are you saying that this would be by some other method than injecting
cell or cell information from an adult into a donor egg cell?
JDG
On 26/07/2006, at 11:43 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's something else to being human, and
it's to do with our minds not our bodies.
Conjoined twins, parasitic twins. See you
avoided the rest. They're uncomfortable thoughts,
1 - 100 of 219 matches
Mail list logo
