Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:12 PM Subject: Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today > On May 16, 2005, at 7:34 PM, JDG wrote: > > > At 07:03 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Warren wrote: > >> The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a > >> distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The > >> question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is > >> what "human" actually means. > > > > If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question. > > It's the easiest answers of which we should often be most suspicious. In one sense, yes, but in another sense, no. If the answer is straightforward within our scientific understanding of the world, then the simple answer is usually considered the best. As Pauli said about Maxwell, any idiot can take something simple and make it complicated; it takes a genius to take something complicated and make it simple. The origin of the species was the inital question that Darwin adressed. After over 100 years, we now know a great deal more about this than he did. While there are some borderline calls between species that can mate but almost never do (lions and tigers for example), we have a pretty good working defintion that can be expressed in terms of gene space. Let me give one racist comment as an example of how the humanness of the other is denied, in contradiction with our best scientific understanding. "Blacks and whites are suppose to stay seperateyou don't see the bluebirds hanging around the blackbirds, do you? The implication, of course, is that blacks and whites are as fundamentally different as blackbirds and bluebirds. But, we know they are not. Blacks, Asians, Caucasians, etc. are all part of the same species. The genetic differences between them, while obviously existant, are relatively small...far less than the differences between species. So, a false representation of emperical observations underpins this racist attitude. I'd argue that human societies have, for a number of convenient reasons, denied the humaness of the "other." For a number of reasons, and even when the genetic differences are extremely small (as with the Irish vs. the English), it was "common sense" that the "other" was so different as to render than inherently less than one's own group. To take it even further, one of the best insights that d. brin had in to Tolkin, I think, is that, why he wasn't a racist, he was a racialist. He believed that blood tells...that there is something fundamentally different about "good blood lines." > As I suggested in my note to Dan, extending the epithet "human" to > every member of the species is an ideal and nothing more; in reality we > barely allow that label to be placed on fellow countrymen with whom we > do not agree, let alone other cultures. I would argue that this is denying the humanness of others. Homo sapients are human is a tatology, human is simply a common word for homo sapient. It is considered a critical first step in promoting atrocitiesdenying that those who are about to be killed, tortured, enslaved, etc. are humans like those who are doing the killing, the torturing, etc., and therefore the actions are acceptable I'd argue that this is the easy answer...that what one wishes to do for selfish reasons really doesn't violate any ethics. It is easy to promote war by dehumanizing the enemy. It's much harder to justify wars that involve the killing of innocent people, just like your kids. If you look at some of the arguements given for blacks being sub-human, Native Americans being sub-human, the Irish being sub-human, you get a number of counterfactuals that are believed and are used to "prove" the point. > The issue of what it is to be human lies at the core of some of our > most divisive debates, I think. Abortion, capital punishment, > end-of-life issues and elective wars (any elective war, not just the > one frequently bandied about here) often, I think, boil down to the > basic question of what we mean when we say "human". > > (Hmm, an aside -- it occurs to me that perhaps *all* wars are definable > as elective. Someone always chooses to attack.) > > As an example, unless one believes in the idea of a soul I don't think > it's possible to suggest -- realistically -- that many members of this > species (by strict definition) are human in many ways. > > That sounds callous and brutal, or rather that suggestion can be used > to reach callous and brutal conclusions, but unless we analyze what's > really meant by our d
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/19/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 09:47 PM 5/18/2005 EDT, Bob wrote: > As a scientist, I am sure that you agree that the unborn child is, in > fact, > homo sapiens. So, what you are really saying is that there are some > humans who do not enjoy the protection of human rights. > > So, why are you so quick to defend an American legal system that extends > the protection of human rights at the moment a child leaves the womb of > his > or her mother, with the intent of the mother? Or do you have other > criteria for cases in which human rights should not be extended to certain > humans? > Why are you condemning the American legal system Why do you hate America? ;-) I would support human rights for sentient non-humans. In the case of a fetus I might fall back on the ancient religious doctrine that the soul enters the body with the first breath. Like Jesus as a rabbi and religious teacher would have believed and elements of the language of the Bible imply. ;-) -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 09:47 PM 5/18/2005 EDT, Bob wrote: >> The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a >> >distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The >> >question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is >> >what "human" actually means. >> >> If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question. > > >Cleaver answer. It also has the advantage of being true. >But the problem with all of this back and forth about when an >embryo becomes a human or however you want call is that it attempts to assign >an essential quality (human or not) to a process that is incremental. There >is nothing essential about the process of a fetus becoming a human. It is a >gradual incremental process that does not stop a birth but continues throughout >life. As a scientist, I am sure that you agree that the unborn child is, in fact, homo sapiens. So, what you are really saying is that there are some humans who do not enjoy the protection of human rights. So, why are you so quick to defend an American legal system that extends the protection of human rights at the moment a child leaves the womb of his or her mother, with the intent of the mother? Or do you have other criteria for cases in which human rights should not be extended to certain humans? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
In a message dated 5/16/2005 10:38:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a > >distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The > >question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is > >what "human" actually means. > > If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question. Cleaver answer. But the problem with all of this back and forth about when an embryo becomes a human or however you want call is that it attempts to assign an essential quality (human or not) to a process that is incremental. There is nothing essential about the process of a fetus becoming a human. It is a gradual incremental process that does not stop a birth but continues throughout life. It is similar to the 19th century arguement about the origin of the species. Before Darwin species were thought as real distinct seperate entities. Darwin showed that while species are somewhat distinct they are not in fact seperate entities. They arise from prior species and the transiton form a prior species to a new species is a gradual (although often quite abrupt in geologic time) process. That is the way individual humans are. We are distinct but arise gradually. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 10:12 PM Monday 5/16/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On May 16, 2005, at 7:34 PM, JDG wrote: At 07:03 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Warren wrote: The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is what "human" actually means. If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question. It's the easiest answers of which we should often be most suspicious. As I suggested in my note to Dan, extending the epithet "human" to every member of the species is an ideal and nothing more; in reality we barely allow that label to be placed on fellow countrymen with whom we do not agree, let alone other cultures. The issue of what it is to be human lies at the core of some of our most divisive debates, I think. Abortion, capital punishment, end-of-life issues and elective wars (any elective war, not just the one frequently bandied about here) often, I think, boil down to the basic question of what we mean when we say "human". (Hmm, an aside -- it occurs to me that perhaps *all* wars are definable as elective. Someone always chooses to attack.) As an example, unless one believes in the idea of a soul I don't think it's possible to suggest -- realistically -- that many members of this species (by strict definition) are human in many ways. That sounds callous and brutal, or rather that suggestion can be used to reach callous and brutal conclusions, but unless we analyze what's really meant by our definitions of these seemingly transparent terms, there's no way any kind of discussion can go forward. The problem as I see it is partly that many *do* believe in the idea of souls, which is -- sorry -- really not much more than superstition. There's never been anything like proof -- nor even evidence of a meaningful nature -- to suggest such a thing as a soul exists. Thus a discussion that begins with assuming the presence of a soul, to me, is based on a false premise. Is a one-week-old zygote human? Genetically, sure, maybe even potentially. Actually? I don't think the question is so easily answered. Same for someone who's completely brain dead and on life support. Now, how about a third trimester fetus? Or someone in a PVS who appears to evince consciousness in rare and random ways? Those questions should be even more difficult to answer. What about people who do brutal things deliberately? Is the label "human" applicable to, say, the BTK killer? Or the freaks of nature who raped and murdered those poor girls in Florida, or that Illinois creature that beat his daughter and her best friend, then stabbed them to death? To complicate things, it is just as just as difficult to answer the question of whether those Warren named are to be classified as "not human." And if they are, how about the POSs who flew airliners into the WTC? How about anyone in the Middle East or elsewhere who thinks that the US is the Great Satan and/or that Israel has no right to exist? (For that matter, do [many] Jews and Arabs act like they think of each other as human?) How about slaves, who were defined in the US Constitution as counting as 60% of a person? Are they only 60% human? How about the poor or disabled who are a net drain on the economy rather than making a net contribution? Easy labels are troubling to me. They rarely seem to apply universally when they're analyzed, and for that reason alone I think it's very risky to behave as though such abstractions represent anything but a hint about the way the world "really" is. This further suggests that we should not feel confident enough about those labels to begin using them to make universally-applicable decisions such as laws. Until we can find or agree on a true, working definition of "human", then, it seems very clear to me that there are some grey areas to which no law should be applied, because there will always be some cases in which those laws are inappropriate or insufficient to address circumstances. Many of us would answer "When there is the slightest doubt, treat them as human." Of course, we still haven't figured out what it means to treat someone as human. Some think that applying the death penalty or going to war is a statement that the condemned prisoner or the enemy is not considered human. Others would say that sometimes human beings choose to commit such evil acts that the only suitable punishment and/or the only way to protect society from them is to take their lives The other problem I see with such an apparently straightforward definition is that it overlooks the simple truth that we share this planet with several other intelligent species. Some indeed would argue with the word "other" in that sentence as assuming facts not supported by the evidence. :P It arrogates to us alone certain traits that we can't be sure don't exist in other organisms, su
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 7:34 PM, JDG wrote: At 07:03 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Warren wrote: The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is what "human" actually means. If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question. It's the easiest answers of which we should often be most suspicious. As I suggested in my note to Dan, extending the epithet "human" to every member of the species is an ideal and nothing more; in reality we barely allow that label to be placed on fellow countrymen with whom we do not agree, let alone other cultures. The issue of what it is to be human lies at the core of some of our most divisive debates, I think. Abortion, capital punishment, end-of-life issues and elective wars (any elective war, not just the one frequently bandied about here) often, I think, boil down to the basic question of what we mean when we say "human". (Hmm, an aside -- it occurs to me that perhaps *all* wars are definable as elective. Someone always chooses to attack.) As an example, unless one believes in the idea of a soul I don't think it's possible to suggest -- realistically -- that many members of this species (by strict definition) are human in many ways. That sounds callous and brutal, or rather that suggestion can be used to reach callous and brutal conclusions, but unless we analyze what's really meant by our definitions of these seemingly transparent terms, there's no way any kind of discussion can go forward. The problem as I see it is partly that many *do* believe in the idea of souls, which is -- sorry -- really not much more than superstition. There's never been anything like proof -- nor even evidence of a meaningful nature -- to suggest such a thing as a soul exists. Thus a discussion that begins with assuming the presence of a soul, to me, is based on a false premise. Is a one-week-old zygote human? Genetically, sure, maybe even potentially. Actually? I don't think the question is so easily answered. Same for someone who's completely brain dead and on life support. Now, how about a third trimester fetus? Or someone in a PVS who appears to evince consciousness in rare and random ways? Those questions should be even more difficult to answer. What about people who do brutal things deliberately? Is the label "human" applicable to, say, the BTK killer? Or the freaks of nature who raped and murdered those poor girls in Florida, or that Illinois creature that beat his daughter and her best friend, then stabbed them to death? Easy labels are troubling to me. They rarely seem to apply universally when they're analyzed, and for that reason alone I think it's very risky to behave as though such abstractions represent anything but a hint about the way the world "really" is. This further suggests that we should not feel confident enough about those labels to begin using them to make universally-applicable decisions such as laws. Until we can find or agree on a true, working definition of "human", then, it seems very clear to me that there are some grey areas to which no law should be applied, because there will always be some cases in which those laws are inappropriate or insufficient to address circumstances. The other problem I see with such an apparently straightforward definition is that it overlooks the simple truth that we share this planet with several other intelligent species. It arrogates to us alone certain traits that we can't be sure don't exist in other organisms, such as self-awareness or consciousness (whatever *that* word means...), and I'm not comfortable personally with applying to h. sapiens alone possession of those traits. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 07:03 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Warren wrote: >The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a >distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The >question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is >what "human" actually means. If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 5:15 PM, JDG wrote: At 04:51 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Warren wrote: To me abortion is a personal decision. I don't expect it to be an easy one when we're talking about a fairly anatomically developed fetus, and I am proximally sure that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of the oven entirely. But infanticide is also a deeply personal decision, and certainly not expected to be an easy one. Do you also believe that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of that oven entirely as well?Or do you believe that it is acceptable for legislatures to intervene in that decision? The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is what "human" actually means. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 03:29 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: >> > The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal >> > some >> > of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, >> > even >> > for development beyond viability. >> >> One quibble here. Even after being born, you can't really argue >> convincingly that a human infant is "viable". Without active, constant >> nurturing it's dead, and that need for nurture goes on for about two >> years, at minimum, after birth. > >OK, then you are arguing for a different dividing line. I was thinking of >viability as a biologically independent organism (no direct, continuous, >connection to the bloodstream of another), and you seem to be arguing for >being able to carry one's own weight. If one wishes to argue for the >rights of a mother to kill their one year old, then that would be >consistent with arguing for the right to kill a post-term undelivered >fetus. Actually, Dan, Warren has a very valid point.Your definition would exclude several types of organisms from being "biologically independent". Moreover, what you really mean is "capable of being biologically separate". I don't think that the word "independent" really applies to newbies - even without considering the role of incubators, respirators, and IV's in the process. Moreover the is not actually separate until birth, what you really mean is being capable of separation. At 04:51 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Warren wrote: >>To me abortion is a personal decision. I don't expect it to be an easy >>one when we're talking about a fairly anatomically developed fetus, and >>I am proximally sure that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of >>the oven entirely. But infanticide is also a deeply personal decision, and certainly not expected to be an easy one. Do you also believe that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of that oven entirely as well?Or do you believe that it is acceptable for legislatures to intervene in that decision? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
