Debates
01 Mar 05
01 Mar 05
Okay, here is a real moral conundrum with respect to abortion. Yes and no answers preferred, particularly from non-heathens, but not strictly required.
Suppose you mate a human with a chimpanzee (or you just let the magic happen on its own) and a chimerical offspring results.
Remarkably, given the gentic closeness of the two species, this may be a biological possibility, although the offspring will likely be sterile (cf. mules, ligers). It's even rumoured that this was actually done at the Yerkes primate lab in Florida. (INSERT PREDICTABLE JOKE ABOUT U.S. PRESIDENT HERE).
Anyhow, the offspring will, on average, be half human and half chimp, from a genetic point of view.
Question 1: Would it be moral to abort it before it was born (either to a human or a chimp mother, or does that make a difference?).
Question 2: Let's suppose that the chimerical offspring would not be sterile, and could be subsequently mated with
(a) a human
(b) a chimp
and further offspring resulted. In case (a) the genes would be about 75% human, in case (b), about 25% human.
Would it be moral to abort in case (a)?
Would it be moral to abort in case (b)?
Question 3: You can see where this is leading. Let's keep mating so as to purify out either (c) the chimp genes, or (d) the human genes, so that, let's say, it's 99.9999% one or the other.
Would it be moral to abort in case (c)?
Would it be moral to abort in case (d)?
Question 4: If you answer differently for (a) and (b) than for (c) and (d), at what point would you draw the line?
Question 5: Same question as the above, but the offspring gets born. Could it be used for drug testing?
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by StarrmanYes, but I would hasten behind you to add that we share something like 40% of our genetic make up with lettuce, so it's not necessarily as astonishing a figure as it may at first glance seem.
I hasten to add, before the theists start their debates, that human and chimp DNA is already somewhere in the region of 95% similar, so you only have 5% to play with to start with.
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by jimmyb270This actually explains a lot. I've often thought that some of my associates are very vegatable like.
Yes, but I would hasten behind you to add that we share something like 40% of our genetic make up with lettuce, so it's not necessarily as astonishing a figure as it may at first glance seem.
I myself am a mushroom.
01 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI was going to make some smart comment like: "Oops, I thought the thread title said 'interspecific condum.'" (Uh, I guess I just did.)
Okay, here is a real moral conundrum with respect to abortion. Yes and no answers preferred, particularly from non-heathens, but not strictly required.
Suppose you mate a human with a chimpanzee (or you just let the magic happen on ...[text shortened]... e, but the offspring gets born. Could it be used for drug testing?
That weak attempt at humour aside, it seems like a pretty-well constructed thought-experiment, even if none of it is remotely possible (I don't know much about genetics). Don't be surprised, though, if some folks just dismiss it, rather than using it to examine their own positions. I'm going to try to give it the thought I think it deserves before trying to respond. I do tend to think that lots of people already go too far in allowing medical technology to redefine when a fetus becomes a "human person" for moral/legal purposes.
Question: Re your question #4, do you mean just where we would draw the line with regard to the human/non-human genetic mix, or whether we would draw the line for allowable abortion differently for different mixes?
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeIn my simplistic universe all life has the same intrinsic, neutral value, or non-value, if you wish, until I become familiar with each individual. At that point each life has a positive or negative value for me. A cabbage I know has more positive value to me than a king I do not know. My dog, a good friend for many years, has far more positive value to me than a stranger who tries to harm my dog, who will, of course have a negative value. Therefore, an imaginary chimp and an imaginary human both have the same value to me and that's a neutral value. Same for their imaginary offspring. Introduce me to them in the real world and perhaps I'll have an opinion. My gut instinct is to not interfere with nature. If they mate naturally and the offspring lives, treat it with respect and see what develops. If they are forced to mate as part of a scientific experiment, level that lab as quickly as possible.
Okay, here is a real moral conundrum with respect to abortion. Yes and no answers preferred, particularly from non-heathens, but not strictly required.
Suppose you mate a human with a chimpanzee (or you just let the magic happen on its own) and a chimerical offspring results.
Remarkably, given the gentic closeness of the two species, this may be a ...[text shortened]... n 5: Same question as the above, but the offspring gets born. Could it be used for drug testing?
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by telerionMaybe cabbage is a confusing example. Let's use my dog Rusty. If, you suddenly appear to me in a nightmare, Telerion, and say, "Delmer you have to choose between the life of your dog and a human you are not even aware exists." I will answer, "I choose my dog." Let's make it a little more realistic. Suppose Dr. Telerion suddenly knocks on my door and says, "Delmer, we know that your dog Rusty has organs that will save the life of an anonymous child. We want your dog." And I would answer, "No. Rusty is my friend. I have an obligation to Rusty. I have no obligation to an anonymous child."
[b] A cabbage I know has more positive value to me than a king I do not know.
You don't really value a cabbage that you know more than the life of a human you have not met do you? Maybe if you "know" the cabbage in the Biblical sense, but otherwise not. Am I misunderstanding you? [/b]
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by DelmerHmm . . . if it were the only way to save the child, I'd be a speciesist and kill the dog. Something to mull over though.
Maybe cabbage is a confusing example. Let's use my dog Rusty. If, you suddenly appear to me in a nightmare, Telerion, and say, "Delmer you have to choose between the life of your dog and a human you are not even aware exists." I will answer, "I choose my dog." Let's make it a little more realistic. Suppose Dr. Telerion suddenly knocks on my door and say ...[text shortened]... Rusty is my friend. I have an obligation to Rusty. I have no obligation to an anonymous child."
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by telerionAnd what if it was your life that was needed to save a child you would never know? I don't want to sound too righteous here but I do believe I would have to sacrifice my own life, even though I would not sacrifice my dog's life. If the request was proven legitimate to me and I indeed was the only chance for the child then I would have to do it. If I did not then my life afterwards would not be worth living anyway. Maybe... Maybe I'm just fooling myself.
Hmm . . . if it were the only way to save the child, I'd be a speciesist and kill the dog. Something to mull over though.
02 Mar 05
2 edits
Originally posted by DelmerLike my statement about killing my hypothetical dog, what I'm about to may say warrant more introspection on my part. I think the only child that I would sacrifice my life for, in the hypothetical situation you propose, would my daughter (only child). It would be very hard, but right now I think I could probably do that. For another child, no.
And what if it was your life that was needed to save a child you would never know? I don't want to sound too righteous here but I do believe I would have to sacrifice my own life, even though I would not sacrifice my dog's life. If the req ...[text shortened]... t be worth living anyway. Maybe... Maybe I'm just fooling myself.
Interestingly, I may be convinced to sacrifice my life to save many strangers. I'd like to think that if I had been on the Titanic, I'd have given up my life to save others.
Even more strange, I imagine myself on the Titanic with only one other person, say a young boy. There is only one life boat seat left. Either he will be saved or I will, but not both of us. My initial urge is to give the seat to the boy.
Is this a contradiction? The only thing I think that makes me sacrifice myself in the Titanic example with the boy, but not in your example, is that I must take action to resolve the dilemma. I must take the last seat and leave the child on the boat. If I do nothing, then we both die. In your example, all that is required to be removed from the dilemma is inaction. I only need to ignore the question and eventually the child will die.
Even though these actions may not really be all that different, they feel different to me. Any other ideas why? Or am I just riddled with contradiction?
02 Mar 05
I'm a bit confused. Did someone just write that a human and a chimp mated and produced a lettuce? Or did the human "know" the lettuce "in a biblical way" and produced a chimp...? I think... that.. would.. hurt... depending on the lettuce of course.
Has there been ANY successful interspecies mating (aside from vegetation)?
A child once asked me how a male (or female) animal evolve into a female (or male) animal allowing the reproduction of an offspring of the same species if it takes quadrillion years for evolution to occur. Then he asked me about the difference in plumbing between male and female and how long would that evolution take. I told him to ask his grandmother and I left to play golf.
02 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by krisvictorLOL! It was a cabbage, krisvictor. Yes, there are successful interspecies matings between individuals belonging to the same genus, and/or family perhaps. Usually such hybrid offspring are sterile, but not always. Beefalos are produced by crossing American bison and domestic cattle and are fertile. Mules are produced by crossing burros and horses and are not fertile. Ligers and/or tiglons (depending on which species provides the male) are produced by mating tigers and lions and are not fertile. And there must be other examples in the Animal Kingdom. No doubt genetic science will be able to produce a human-chimp cross in the not too distant future if allowed to go down that road.
I'm a bit confused. Did someone just write that a human and a chimp mated and produced a lettuce? Or did the human "know" the lettuce "in a biblical way" and produced a chimp...? I think... that.. would.. hurt... depending on the le ...[text shortened]... n take. I told him to ask his grandmother and I left to play golf.
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by telerionVery interesting, Telerion. I've never imagined anything involving the Titanic but I have imagined throwing myself on a grenade in a crowd, that kind of thing. I can understand your feeling that there is a difference between your example of a boy on the Titanic and my example of an anonymous child. Perhaps it's just the natural difference between the concrete and the abstract. Also interesting that you mention dying for your daughter. I have no children and did not consider such a situaton involving one's own child. Enlightening conversation though. I've enjoyed it. But I'm afraid we've strayed rather far from Pawnokey's(sp?) original chimp-human thread.
Like my statement about killing my hypothetical dog, what I'm about to may say warrant more introspection on my part. I think the only child that I would sacrifice my life for, in the hypothetical situation you propose, would my daughter (only child). It would be very hard, but right now I think I could probably do that. For another child, no.
Intere ...[text shortened]... rent, they feel different to me. Any other ideas why? Or am I just riddled with contradiction?