Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
At 11:16 PM 11/8/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: >> Therfore, I do feel quite comfortable in saying that the comparison >> doesn't hold.After all, nobody here says "I'm personally opposed to >> killing >> gays, but I don't want to impose my morality on other people by voting to >> make killing gays illegal." > >I see how you rationalize it John, but it doesn't hold water with me. But, it is also worth noting that we have never permitted any two people to marry. For example, we don't permit brother and sister to marry, or father and daughter, or mother and son. So again, its not like we are permitting heteros to do something that gays cannot - everyone is bound by the same restriction. Furthermore, many of the benefits of marriage can be achieved through other legal means. Thus, the debate becomes not that these benefits are being denied outright, but that these benefits are made more easily available to one sort of relationshipw which society has chosen to favor. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
John wrote: Therfore, I do feel quite comfortable in saying that the comparison doesn't hold.After all, nobody here says "I'm personally opposed to killing gays, but I don't want to impose my morality on other people by voting to make killing gays illegal." I see how you rationalize it John, but it doesn't hold water with me. If you don't allow partners to make medical decisions for each other, deny them visitation rights, contest and overrule their powers of attorney with great frequency; if you force homosexual couples to testify against each other in a court of law when heteros have the right to refuse testimony, then you are denying them "the full rights of humanity". Here's a good essay on the subject: http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm There really is no good reason to deny Gay people the same rights accorded heterosexuals, the reason we do comes down to xenophobia or as you stated it "they are not like us in some way." -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
At 11:02 PM 11/6/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: >John wrote: > >> This is, of course, my point. Throughout human history one group of >> humans has sought to define a nother group of humans that are "not like >> us" in some way, as not having the full rights of humanity.In every >> previous case, we have gone on to look with horror upon those who make >> those arguments. > >You mean like Gays? Well, I've thought about this, and no, I don't mean like gays. First of all, as I have noted many times before, gays are free to marry someone of the opposite sex in this country. Thus, gays do have the full rights of every other member of society - there is no double-standard. Secondly, gays are free to marry to as gays in any Church that would recognize such union. Lastly, as you know, I do support some form of "civil unions" that might provide a number of legal conveniences for gay couples. Therfore, I do feel quite comfortable in saying that the comparison doesn't hold.After all, nobody here says "I'm personally opposed to killing gays, but I don't want to impose my morality on other people by voting to make killing gays illegal." JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
On Nov 8, 2004, at 12:04 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: First they came for the single moms and I did not speak out because I was not a single mom. Then they came for "welfare cheats" and I did not speak out because I was not on welfare. Then they came for the gays and I did not speak out because I was not gay. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. -- with apologies to Martin Niemöller Well, I was worried that the Democratic Party wouldn't be able to figure out a way to lose the _next_ election. I see that was ill-founded. Thankfully, the Democratic party doesn't follow my lead. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First they came for the single moms > and I did not speak out > because I was not a single mom. > Then they came for "welfare cheats" > and I did not speak out > because I was not on welfare. > Then they came for the gays > and I did not speak out > because I was not gay. > Then they came for me > and there was no one left > to speak out for me. >-- with apologies to Martin Niemöller Well, I was worried that the Democratic Party wouldn't be able to figure out a way to lose the _next_ election. I see that was ill-founded. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
On Nov 6, 2004, at 11:02 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: John wrote: This is, of course, my point. Throughout human history one group of humans has sought to define a nother group of humans that are "not like us" in some way, as not having the full rights of humanity. In every previous case, we have gone on to look with horror upon those who make those arguments. You mean like Gays? First they came for the single moms and I did not speak out because I was not a single mom. Then they came for "welfare cheats" and I did not speak out because I was not on welfare. Then they came for the gays and I did not speak out because I was not gay. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. -- with apologies to Martin Niemöller ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
Aren't we being a little narrow here, concerning ourselves with only the genotype? I'd say the phenotype is as important, if not vastly more important then the genotype. After all, you could theoretically use chemicals to interfere with genetic expression and transform a clump of cells with a human genetic payload, and get it to manifest as, say, an ape. A better thought experiment might be, if you swap a gorilla's and a human's brain, and over time, the alien cells die and are replaced by native cells, which one is truly human. ~Maru, who thinks that the criterion should be sentience, not any physical paramaters. > From: Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient? > To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain > > I said: > > > This may well be so, and yet for any pair of species A and B > there > > are paths in gene space that have the property that one end > of the > > path is in the cluster for species A, the other end of the > path is > > in cluster B, and every point along the path gives the genome > of a > > viable organism (given a suitable environment in which > > morphogenesis can occur). (This is true because any pair of > species > > have a common ancestor if one looks far enough back in time, > so one > > can head from species A towards a genome from the ancestral > species > > C, and from there towards species B.) > > I should note that this isn't the situation I described in my > original > thought experiment, because the genomes of the ancestral forms > will in > general not be combinations of various parts of modern genomes. > This > means that, for example, that there might not be viable > organisms with > a genome that is half human and half chimp. Getting around this > issue > was assumed to be part of the fiendish process involved by my > scientist. I don't think this affects my argument at all > though, but if > it does one can construct a similar series along the path > through gene > space described above. > > Rich __ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
John wrote: This is, of course, my point. Throughout human history one group of humans has sought to define a nother group of humans that are "not like us" in some way, as not having the full rights of humanity.In every previous case, we have gone on to look with horror upon those who make those arguments. You mean like Gays? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
At 06:00 PM 11/6/2004 + Richard Baker wrote: >> An a honest question for you, but its a doozy, if you choose to >> accept it: How is this position morally different from being >> "personally opposed to the killing of Jews and counseling against >> it" but ultimately not standing in the way of it? > >Whilst these are not morally different if one is working from the axiom >that foetuses are people, but it clearly is if one does not accept said >axiom. If, for the sake of argument, one considers sufficiently >undeveloped foetuses to be morally akin to non-human animals rather >than people then the position would be analogous to being an >evangelical vegetarian but not standing in the way of people eating >meat should they choose. One might even reasonably choose a position >that placed foetuses further down the scale of things worthy of moral >consideration. As there is no discernible essence of human-ness, I >think that any reasonable position would accept that there is *some* >position along the developmental process before which abortion should >not be banned. So, are you saying that I am not a reasonable person? >(Of course, the Nazis considered Jews to be sub-human so they would >presumably make a similar argument. This is, of course, my point. Throughout human history one group of humans has sought to define a nother group of humans that are "not like us" in some way, as not having the full rights of humanity.In every previous case, we have gone on to look with horror upon those who make those arguments. >The difference is that foetuses are >clearly not functionally equivalent to adults or even children, whereas >Jews are indistinguishable except for cultural factors [and in some >cases, perhaps, certain genetic markers] from other people.) Of course, would not the Nazis have argued that the Jews are inferior, and therfore "clearly not functionally equivalent"? This returns me to my question, however, regarding being "personally opposed" but unwilling to vote for restrictions on a behavior.You note that this question makes the most sense if "one is working from the axiom that foetuses are people" - yet, if one is "personally opposed" isn't this clearly the case? >I have a counter-question (or rather some counter-questions!). You >clearly believe in a form of essentialism that makes human life >sacrosanct. Let me assume, for the moment, that you do not believe that >chimpanzees should have the same rights as people. (If you differ from >this position, I can rebuild the thought experiment along slightly >different lines.) Now, let's suppose that some dastardly scientist has >created a whole series of foetuses that have varying amounts of human >and chimpanzee genes. At one end, there's one that's 99% human and 1% >chimpanzee. At the other end, there's one that's 1% human and 99% chimp. >Between these extremes they vary in 1% increments. Now, which of these >(if any) do you consider should be worthy of the same protection that >fully human foetuses should be accorded? Which of the adults derived >from these foetuses should have full human rights? What determines the >position of the boundary? If you consider the answer depends on exactly >which human and chimp genes are included, which factors are most >important? If you say that none are worthy of being considered human, is >there any degree of chimp genome (perhaps one gene or a section of >introns) that could be spliced in without removing the essence of >humanity? This is a difficult quesiton in a number of ways. First, I would be opposed to most such genetic engineering in the first place.Secondly, the technology described is so far beyond present capabilities as to be entirely fanciful. Suffice to say, this is a challenge without practical importance. Lastly, I agree with Dan on this being primarily Zeno's paradox.I believe that there is a line between human and non-human, although I don't have the biological expertise to draw the line specifically. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
At 06:30 PM 11/6/2004 + Richard Baker wrote: >Quite. But if one could see souls, this problem would evaporate (or >would it? what if there were two classes of people who were >indistinguishable in all ways except that one class makes the >soulometer beep and the other doesn't?). Speaking for myself, it wouldn't change my position. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
- Original Message - From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 1:08 PM Subject: Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient? > Dan said: > > > 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. > > This may well be so, and yet for any pair of species A and B there are > paths in gene space that have the property that one end of the path is > in the cluster for species A, the other end of the path is in cluster > B, and every point along the path gives the genome of a viable organism > (given a suitable environment in which morphogenesis can occur). (This > is true because any pair of species have a common ancestor if one looks > far enough back in time, so one can head from species A towards a > genome from the ancestral species C, and from there towards species B.) > Given this, if one wishes to define species membership as a binary > predicate, then one will necessarily be able to produce viable > organisms that span the boundary between the "member of species A" > region and the "not member of species A" region, and furthermore to do > so in such gradual steps that the distribution of individuals look > essentially continuous in any variable one wishes to measure. I understand your gedanken experiment and agree that it might have been harder to seperate the humans from the non-humans than it is now. I don't know where the dividing line is. But, I have a pretty good feel for the foundation of our definition. It is non-emperical: beings who perceive as I do. My reflective self awareness exists, but I cannot show it to you. Models of human behavior that include this + all the science we know have no predictive ability than those that simply contain all the science that we know. Fundamentally, I think of humans as those beings who also have this reflective self awareness. This runs into obvious problemswhich are referred to in the part of my post that I am mulling. We see that there has been horrible abuse of people based on the assumption: they aren't really like us...the differences are large enough so that we can treat them as sub-human. This history has made me quite suspect of any arguements that restrict humanity. But, there is an obvious cut point that exists. Humans are quite different from the closest species to them in gene space. I'll fully agree that we can go back in time, backtracking evolution until we get to an organism that clearly wasn't human. I'll agree that we probably don't know where the exact point was that people first existed. But, I hope you can see that not knowing where the dividing line between set A and set B is doesn't mean there isn't an important difference. The actual difference is the reflective self awareness. I assume that there is a being like me typing on a keyboard in response to me that goes by the handle "Richard Baker." But, as Wittgenstein pointed out, we cannot even use language to understand the interior sense of the other. So, we have beliefs about that. We use metaphorical language to describe that which transcends the empiricalor at least exists without empirical proof. I think these understandings can be described and discussedeven if we cannot exactly find boundaries. What we can do, though, is set boundaries at the most reasonable looking places. Yes, they are, by necessity, somewhat artificial, but we do that all the time elsewhere. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
I said: > This may well be so, and yet for any pair of species A and B there > are paths in gene space that have the property that one end of the > path is in the cluster for species A, the other end of the path is > in cluster B, and every point along the path gives the genome of a > viable organism (given a suitable environment in which > morphogenesis can occur). (This is true because any pair of species > have a common ancestor if one looks far enough back in time, so one > can head from species A towards a genome from the ancestral species > C, and from there towards species B.) I should note that this isn't the situation I described in my original thought experiment, because the genomes of the ancestral forms will in general not be combinations of various parts of modern genomes. This means that, for example, that there might not be viable organisms with a genome that is half human and half chimp. Getting around this issue was assumed to be part of the fiendish process involved by my scientist. I don't think this affects my argument at all though, but if it does one can construct a similar series along the path through gene space described above. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
Dan said: > 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. This may well be so, and yet for any pair of species A and B there are paths in gene space that have the property that one end of the path is in the cluster for species A, the other end of the path is in cluster B, and every point along the path gives the genome of a viable organism (given a suitable environment in which morphogenesis can occur). (This is true because any pair of species have a common ancestor if one looks far enough back in time, so one can head from species A towards a genome from the ancestral species C, and from there towards species B.) Given this, if one wishes to define species membership as a binary predicate, then one will necessarily be able to produce viable organisms that span the boundary between the "member of species A" region and the "not member of species A" region, and furthermore to do so in such gradual steps that the distribution of individuals look essentially continuous in any variable one wishes to measure. The "fact" that species are distinct entities today is caused purely because there are no extant intermediate forms between them. This is not a necessary state of things, and indeed there are cases of populations with large geographical ranges that have the property that pairs of individuals (of different sex!) found close together can all (or almost all) breed with each other, but pairs containing one from each end of the range cannot. If modern humans and some other hominid type were such a population today then I think the inadequacy of our current scheme for including or excluding animals from humanity would be manifest. The rest of your email is also interesting, but I will have to think about it with the hope that I'll be able to formulate some coherent thoughts before the discussion moves on. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 06:30:48PM +, Richard Baker wrote: > Quite. But if one could see souls, this problem would evaporate (or > would it? It seems like a solid problem to me. So...it would sublimate. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
- 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 animalsabout 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
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
Erik said: > I can see the soul now! > > Soul: [Looks at zygote with 1% chimp] "Oh, yuck, I'm not going > in there!" Quite. But if one could see souls, this problem would evaporate (or would it? what if there were two classes of people who were indistinguishable in all ways except that one class makes the soulometer beep and the other doesn't?). Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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. 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, 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
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 06:00:10PM +, Richard Baker wrote: > and chimpanzee genes. At one end, there's one that's 99% human and > 1% chimpanzee. At the other end, there's one that's 1% human and > 99% chimp. Between these extremes they vary in 1% increments. Now, > which of these (if any) do you consider should be worthy of the same > protection that fully human foetuses should be accorded? I can see the soul now! Soul: [Looks at zygote with 1% chimp] "Oh, yuck, I'm not going in there!" -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
- Original Message - From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 12:00 PM Subject: Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient? > (Of course, the Nazis considered Jews to be sub-human so they would > presumably make a similar argument. The difference is that foetuses are > clearly not functionally equivalent to adults or even children, whereas > Jews are indistinguishable except for cultural factors [and in some > cases, perhaps, certain genetic markers] from other people.) 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. > I have a counter-question (or rather some counter-questions!). You > clearly believe in a form of essentialism that makes human life > sacrosanct. Let me assume, for the moment, that you do not believe that > chimpanzees should have the same rights as people. (If you differ from > this position, I can rebuild the thought experiment along slightly > different lines.) Now, let's suppose that some dastardly scientist has > created a whole series of foetuses that have varying amounts of human > and chimpanzee genes. At one end, there's one that's 99% human and 1% > chimpanzee. At the other end, there's one that's 1% human and 99% chimp. > Between these extremes they vary in 1% increments. Now, which of these > (if any) do you consider should be worthy of the same protection that > fully human foetuses should be accorded? Which of the adults derived > from these foetuses should have full human rights? What determines the > position of the boundary? If you consider the answer depends on exactly > which human and chimp genes are included, which factors are most > important? If you say that none are worthy of being considered human, is > there any degree of chimp genome (perhaps one gene or a section of > introns) that could be spliced in without removing the essence of > humanity? Isn't this just Zeno's paradox? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
JDG said: > An a honest question for you, but its a doozy, if you choose to > accept it: How is this position morally different from being > "personally opposed to the killing of Jews and counseling against > it" but ultimately not standing in the way of it? Whilst these are not morally different if one is working from the axiom that foetuses are people, but it clearly is if one does not accept said axiom. If, for the sake of argument, one considers sufficiently undeveloped foetuses to be morally akin to non-human animals rather than people then the position would be analogous to being an evangelical vegetarian but not standing in the way of people eating meat should they choose. One might even reasonably choose a position that placed foetuses further down the scale of things worthy of moral consideration. As there is no discernible essence of human-ness, I think that any reasonable position would accept that there is *some* position along the developmental process before which abortion should not be banned. (Of course, the Nazis considered Jews to be sub-human so they would presumably make a similar argument. The difference is that foetuses are clearly not functionally equivalent to adults or even children, whereas Jews are indistinguishable except for cultural factors [and in some cases, perhaps, certain genetic markers] from other people.) I have a counter-question (or rather some counter-questions!). You clearly believe in a form of essentialism that makes human life sacrosanct. Let me assume, for the moment, that you do not believe that chimpanzees should have the same rights as people. (If you differ from this position, I can rebuild the thought experiment along slightly different lines.) Now, let's suppose that some dastardly scientist has created a whole series of foetuses that have varying amounts of human and chimpanzee genes. At one end, there's one that's 99% human and 1% chimpanzee. At the other end, there's one that's 1% human and 99% chimp. Between these extremes they vary in 1% increments. Now, which of these (if any) do you consider should be worthy of the same protection that fully human foetuses should be accorded? Which of the adults derived from these foetuses should have full human rights? What determines the position of the boundary? If you consider the answer depends on exactly which human and chimp genes are included, which factors are most important? If you say that none are worthy of being considered human, is there any degree of chimp genome (perhaps one gene or a section of introns) that could be spliced in without removing the essence of humanity? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
