--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 17/07/2006, at 6:50 AM, jdiebremse wrote: > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <charlie@> wrote: > >> On 15/07/2006, at 3:43 PM, jdiebremse wrote: > >>>> We weren't discussing abortion. > >>> > >>> Yes we are. We are talking about conceiving a number of > >>> children, > >>> and "eliminating" the children of the undesired sex. > >> > >> As I pointed out elsewhere, this is the main assumption of > >> difference. If you regard an undifferentiated pre-implantion > >> ball > >> of cells as a "child", then of course you're going to have a > >> different view to those who think humanity and sentience and so > >> are sliding scales (that an adult has more rights than a child > >> has > >> more rights than an infant than a foetus than an embryo than a > >> zygote than an ovum). > > > > I know that it is oh-so-fashionable in these parts to say that > > everything comes in "shades of grey", and contrast that to pale- > > conservative JDG who sees things in black-and-white, but > > sometimes > > things really are in black-and-white. To put it another way, > > the > > right to life is like virginity - either you have it or you > > don't. > > The question is, at what point does the "organism" become a fully- > fledged member of the group? You say at conception. Possessing > a full complement of chromosomes suddenly makes you fully human. > Well, others disagree. Some think it's when implantation occurs. > Others, at the point where the foetus is capable of independent > survival (this is approximately my position at present). Others > still, at birth or a > specified time thereafter and still others, at the point when the > child achieves full self-awareness.
That's all well and good Charlie, but at now point have you defending your original assertion that rights are a "sliding scale." You have argued that different people have different scales - but you have described all of those scales as being "black- and-white." You have not described any of them as being "sliding." > >> A blastocyst is not a child to most people, John. Many, possibly > >> most according to some studies, zygotes *fail to implant* > >> and "die" in the toilet or soaked up in a panty-liner. The > >> wastage > >> is naturally huge. Clearly, until they're able to implant, > >> they're disposable, *biologically* speaking. > > > > Sorry, Charlie, but this is not sound logic. The logical > > conculsion > > of what you are saying is that "if the infant mortality rate is > > high, then infanticide is morally acceptable." I hope that > > makes > > it clear. > > Utterly false connection. An infant is an independent and > individual. A blastocyst is not. I completely disagree. The zygote clearly exists in its own space, has its own genetic code, and that genetic code is clearly human. I see no biological basis for classifying the cells of the zygote as part of some other organisim, so therfore it is its own organism. Also biologically speaking, this organism must be classified as the member of some species, and that species is clearly homo sapiens sapiens. So, that's my view on an individual. Out of curiosity - what makes one an independent individual and what makes one a non- individual in your mind? > Cancer is undifferentiated balls of cells too. Is a tumour > a "human"? A tumor is clearly a growth of an existing individual. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
