Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 11:07:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <ac199@hwcn.org> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> Cc: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org>, drifter@stratos.net, Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, fpawlak@execpc.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Does it's true? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980629102213.242B-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <19980629100818.22528@follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Eivind Eklund wrote: > > Then doesn't it have (a) value just as you or me? > > It does have value. Just as a dog has value. The question is at what > point you consider that value high enough to warrant what protection. [...] > It is just a question of where you put the line for what you consider > human. We all agree to put the limit somewhere between the sperm/ova > and the point a healthy baby being born 9 months later - it is only a > question of where. Unless the limit is something ``just exists'' (as opposed to something that we can define by common agreement). Enter the whole idea of what you refer to as "magic". (Of course, nothing makes the absence of magic less magical than its presence other than our present sensibilities.) And, of course, you can use a sliding scale without any limit at all. That's a little scary... > > I would suggest that some definitions are considerably cleaner, > > in the same way a well-designed computer system is cleaner. > > So give me a "clean" definition to rip to pieces ;-) Hehe. And then you would attack it using arguments I don't agree with, and I would defend it using arguments that I don't agree with, and the end result would be nothing at all. :) Anyways, even if I wanted to, I don't think I could hand you a clean definition. I have definate preferences which, I have reason to believe, differ from yours :), but any attempt to say what is human also has to define death, and I have yet to see anyone handle that neatly. Besides that, this is a Broken World, and it may well be that there no longer is a clean definition. That would put my whole argument in a rather difficult spot. ;-) Essentially, the only argument I have is that some placements of the limit result in a fuzzier definition of what is human and what is not. [to use your terminology, of course: the implications of words like "limit", "fuzzier", "definition" are not necessarily intended :] -- This .sig is not innovative, witty, or profund. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980629102213.242B-100000>