On 30/08/2008 Charlie Bell wrote:
>...there are some people that believe human life  
>starts at birth. There are a few (a very few) that believe it starts  
>when humans attain sapience (Peter Singer is one). There are many that  
>think it starts at conception. Most think somewhere between conception  
>and birth, round about when the foetus has a good chance of surviving  
>independently of the placenta.

Since you mention Peter Singer, he makes an interesting point.  The people who 
are most concerned about the life of a foetus, which has little if any 
sentience, are generally unconcerned about the life of other creatures with 
much greater degrees of sentience.  Chimpanzees and gorillas are at least the 
intellectual equals of small children or seriously disabled humans, and yet 
somehow that counts for nothing in most people's moral equation.  (A lot of 
people are sentimental about animals, but when push comes to shove, very few 
people really stand behind the idea that animals have rights).  Koko the 
gorilla reputedly scores between 70 and 90 on human IQ tests (which puts her 
dangerously close to our President) and even if that is an exaggerated claim, 
she is obviously a sensitive creature, capable of loving and mourning for lost 
loved ones (including her pet cat and her long time mate).  I had the 
opportunity to meet Washoe the Chimpanzee on a tour of the Chimpanzee Human Comm
 unication Institue before her death this past year, and looking into her face 
left me no doubt that she was a person, and one of great dignity and wisdom as 
well.  Even Border Collies have been shown to have linguistic understanding 
equal to that of young children, and probably much more independent judgement.  
Without falling back on religion and mystical concepts "souls" I don't see how 
there is any rational definition of "person" that includes human beings and 
doesn't include a lot of non-human animals as well.  And of course, all these 
defenses of "human dignity" by religious believers are pretty recent 
historically -- it wasn't all that long ago that the churches were finding ways 
to justify the extermination of native peoples and slavery by arguing about 
whether different groups of people had souls.  Abraham Lincoln countered those 
kinds of arguments by noting, early in his career, that he wasn't sure if black 
were people were the intellectual equals of whites or not, 
 but that it didn't have any effect on his view of slavery, because it was 
wrong and cruel either way.  Jeremy Bentham put it like this:  "The question is 
not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?" 

When "pro-life" advocates start defending all life I'll take them seriously.

Olin
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Charlie Bell<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion<mailto:[email protected]> 
  Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 7:45 PM
  Subject: Re: Sarah Palin



  On 31/08/2008, at 8:48 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
  >>
  > I don't. When atheist-based ideology condemns every baby with
  > Down Syndrome to be search and destroyed, it's a message
  > that people with Down Syndrome should also be hunted and
  > gassed.

  There is no "atheist-based ideology", and what you've written here is  
  frankly offensive crap. Atheism means one thing and one thing only -  
  that I don't believe in god. I don't believe in the tooth fairy or  
  Santa Claus either, and there's no aSantaist ideology. Morals and  
  ethics may have much grounding in religion, but they're not  
  exclusively the preserve of religion (why else are the least religious  
  western democracies the safest, healthiest and best educated?). What  
  you've done here is confused "atheist" with "arsehole".

  As to the second part: there are some people that believe human life  
  starts at birth. There are a few (a very few) that believe it starts  
  when humans attain sapience (Peter Singer is one). There are many that  
  think it starts at conception. Most think somewhere between conception  
  and birth, round about when the foetus has a good chance of surviving  
  independently of the placenta. Framing the very hard choice to  
  terminate a Down's pregnancy detected during the first trimester of  
  pregnancy as equivalent to hunting and gassing people with Down's is  
  sickening. It's not the same thing, neither is it a "slippery slope".

  If you're trolling back at Will, please stop it. One like him on this  
  list is enough. If you're genuinely making this comparison and  
  skirting Godwin in the process, then please take another look at what  
  you've written and how dangerous it is to equate atheism with  
  Lysenkoism and Nazism. The non-religious are one of the last  
  outgroups, and are increasingly overtly discriminated against, and  
  framing things the way you have is actually a step in the direction  
  you're warning against.

  Charlie.
  _______________________________________________
  
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l<http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l>
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to