[Non-member submission]
From: Zero Powers (zero_powers@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Sep 10 2000 - 11:39:35 MDT
>From: "phil osborn" <philosborn@hotmail.com>
>But.... There isn't any "child" at the point of conception. There's just
>an embryo, which, if it gets a huge amount of biosupport for 9 months,
>might
>eventually make it to the point of being a child. The point at which one
>can talk about a child is certainly uncertain at our current state of
>understanding of the scientific/medical/ethical issues, screwed up as they
>are by all the religious nonsense and propaganda, but I can state with
>great
>certainty that it doesn't qualify as a child at conception, nor at one
>week,
>nor at one month, nor at three months. After that, the level of certainly
>starts dropping.
There's no "certainty" to it at all. What you have stated is nothing more
than your own personal and arbitrary belief. (It also happens to be my
belief as well, but that's beside the point.) The point is that there are
no criteria by which it can objectively and inconclusively be determined
where a human-potentiality ends and a human-being begins. The only point
where *everyone* will agree that there is not yet a human is just before
sperm breaches egg. After that, we've got nothing better than "I believe
this" and "You believe that."
So if society conducts itself according to *your* belief that a 3 month old
fetus is mere biological rubbish which can be disposed of without a second
thought, then when society changes its mind about when a fetus becomes a
human, or if objective (biological or ethical) criteria are ever established
which show that you drew the line in the wrong part of the sand, then it may
well turn out that, following your lead, society is a bigger genocidal
criminal than Hitler could ever have hoped to be.
I realize that this is much like the debate over the number of angels that
can dance on the head of a pin, but the point is that you are arguing from
*your* beliefs, not from any objective or empirical criteria. So at best
you (and I) can only argue for what we personally believe and conduct our
own personal behaviors accordingly. When you start basing *societal* policy
on your own ethical/moral beliefs, you are no better (and no worse) than the
pro-lifers who would do away with abortion altogether because of *their*
belief that, once sperm meets egg, its a human - and anyone who harms the
fetus, batters a human being.
-Zero
My goodness. I certainly hope that you don't try to live your life on the
basis that you just stated. I'm even more certain of that, actually, than
that an embryo is a human being, as you certainly could not have survived
if that was your actual working decision process.
We KNOW that an embryo is not a human being, any more than the epithelial
cells flaking off the interior of my mouth are human beings - altho they
certainly have that potential, given proper cloning and surogate womb
tech. Should we follow your lead, we would have to out-Janist the Janists,
with their face masks to avoid killing some airborn germ that might have
been their great grandmother.
In treating even a six-month-old fetus as a human being, one is being
really generous. Baby chicks probably have much more real working
intelligence. It is really hard to make a conclusive case for personhood
until a year or so after birth. Even then year-old chimps, great apes in
general, and several of the parrot species, as well as ravens are probably
quite a bit more intelligent than most year old humans.
I suppose that is as much an argument for granting a fairly large group of
"lower" animals rights as it is for denying them to infants. But, there is
a difference. Rights are not some altruistic luxury handed down from God
on high.
A rational explanation of rights, such as Ayn Rand presents - or the
slightly better version of her position found in the Tannehill's "The
Market for Liberty," bases them on our mutual self interest. Rights are a
bottom line representation of the mutual recognitions that allow us to live
together in piece. We are valuable to each other. 99% of the value of our
lives probably is there due to the contribution of other people.
A "right" is a moral prohibition against interference with our
actions. Every word in that definition is essential. It isn't just a
prohibition; it's a "moral" prohibition, meaning that it can be justified
according to a standard of values, a value being something one acts to gain
or keep. The only standard which is not self-contradictory is life itself
(how can you follow a standard of values if you are dead?). Rights are
simply a recognition of what it takes to follow that standard of value in
our dealings with each other.
A "person" of whatever age, sex, or species (chimp, homo-sapiens (actually
a subspecies of chimpanzee), dolphin, or SI) could in theory make the
argument that they have rights because they fit the above category - their
lives and ours are fundamentally mutually beneficial, largely because we
can think rationally and communicate, allowing us to organize and form
relationships that leverage and multiply our individual capabilities.
(Just based on the above, someone could presumeably misgeneralize the
argument to say that since trees and humans are also mutually beneficial,
we have to recognize that trees have rights. It is in my advantage however
to cut down trees, without regard for their individual interests, whereas
the same behavior done to other persons will have many permanent negative
consequences, as well as ignoring that it is the security in their own
rights that is the very thing that makes the other persons so valuable to
me. That does not apply to trees, cows, or other non-persons.)
If they are not a "person," then they cannot make that
argument. Borderline cases would be an infant or a chimp that learned
Ameslan or a very smart parrot that demonstrated that it could recognize
our rights as well as communicate.
_______________________________________________________________________
Free Unlimited Internet Access! Try it now!
http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/altavista/index.html
_______________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:22 MDT