JDG said:
The problem with your question is that there seems to be plenty of
evidence that not all DNA is created equal - that some DNA is more
important than other DNA. Thus, its hard to really speak about your
hypothetical, as simply speaking about DNA in terms of percentages
doesn't seem to be all that usefull.
In which case: which parts of the phenotypic expression of genes are
most important for categorisation as human?
I would apply a few basic principles, however:
-unborn children would have the same rights as adults, whatever
those
rights may be
The right to marry or stand for election to Congress? ;)
-the default position would be to err on the side of protecting
life;
that is, if one wishes to deny human rights to the organism, the
burden
of proof would be to prove that the organism is a modified animal,
rather than a modified human
Yes, that I can agree with. But again: what set of characteristics
make an entity a modified animal rather than a modified human?
An alternative and more science-fictional version of the same sort of
situation. Suppose we have a "time scoop" that can pluck ancestors of
modern humans out of the past and into the present (after they've
performed their role as ancestors!). Let's suck up enough such
ancestors to make up a small town's population, grabbing them at 1000
year intervals (or, if you prefer, at some interval defined by number
of generations). I don't think anyone would argue that the ancestors
from AD1000, AD1 or 1000BC shouldn't be granted human rights. But how
about the small rodent-like ones from 100,000,000BC? Then where is
the line to be drawn?
Rich
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
