The assumption I am trying to tackle with this thought experiment, since it seems not to have been commented upon, is that the morality of abortion depends upon whether the being being aborted is nominally human or not. I think this is not relevant. And I think the difficulty that arises is trying to give sensible answers to the enquiries I raise suffices to prove it.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI don't like the use of the word moral because morals are subjectively defined. In an objective sense I think non-natural abortions in any species short circuit evolution and inevitably will weaken and destroy that species. So, morals aside, I say no abortions for any species or mix of species except those that happen in the natural course of events. Let births occur. Let the strong survive and the weak die. Who are we to interfere?
The assumption I am trying to tackle with this thought experiment, since it seems not to have been commented upon, is that the morality of abortion depends upon whether the being being aborted is nominally human or not. I think this is not relevant. And I think the difficulty that arises is trying to give sensible answers to the enquiries I raise suffices to prove it.
Originally posted by DelmerIsn't the big barrier against chimp/human offspring the fact that the two species have different numbers of chromosomes? The genetic closeness may be a bit of red herring...
LOL! I know of no successful hybrids among primates but that certainly doesn't mean there haven't been some. Hybrids so far have been between species of the same family or genus as far as I know. Species of the same order, such as primate, but not of the same family and/or genus seem to be unable to produce hybrids. I believe that humans and chimps share 95 ...[text shortened]... your bishop-king-primate question, I'll have to defer to the newly created Spirituality Forum.
Of course, another barrier would be the unfeasibly vast amount of alcohol it would take to make a female chimp look tasty (or have I not experienced true desperation?).
Originally posted by mmanuelAnd now these new remains.
Homo habilis, ergaster, erectus, rudolfensis to name a few. I think neanderthal was also a very close relation, but not an actual Homo [no jokes please]
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050305005009&newsLang=en
"The estimated age of the site, based on preliminary field analysis of the associated animal fossils, is roughly 3.8 to 4 million years. However, confirmation has to await radiometric dating of the rock samples."
Let's see how accurate the dating turns out to be.
Originally posted by telerionGo to the religion thread. Thanks. This has no place here.
And now these new remains.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050305005009&newsLang=en
"The estimated age of the site, based on preliminary field analysis of the associated animal fossils, is roughly 3.8 to 4 million years. However, confirmation has to await radiometric dating of the rock samples."
Let's see how accurate the dating turns out to be.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhy not? I haven't said anything about religion. If you read the link you will see that they have not yet been able to categorize the species of homonid remains. Dating will be the key.
Go to the religion thread. Thanks. This has no place here.
As you've professed a fascination with science, I'd have thought you'd find the news interesting.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivangriceYou do realize that there are quite a few people who have sex with animals and/or watch porn of animals and people having sex, right?
Isn't the big barrier against chimp/human offspring the fact that the two species have different numbers of chromosomes? The genetic closeness may be a bit of red herring...
Of course, another barrier would be the unfeasibly vast amo ...[text shortened]... le chimp look tasty (or have I not experienced true desperation?).
Originally posted by DelmerSo I guess by extension we shouldn't feed the hungry, clothe the homeless, defend the weak against violence, cure the sick, etc...
I don't like the use of the word moral because morals are subjectively defined. In an objective sense I think non-natural abortions in any species short circuit evolution and inevitably will weaken and destroy that species. So, morals aside, I say no abortions for any species or mix of species except those that happen in the natural course of events. Let births occur. Let the strong survive and the weak die. Who are we to interfere?
Originally posted by DelmerWho are we not to interfere?
I don't like the use of the word moral because morals are subjectively defined. In an objective sense I think non-natural abortions in any species short circuit evolution and inevitably will weaken and destroy that species. So, morals aside, I say no abortions for any species or mix of species except those that happen in the natural course of events. Let births occur. Let the strong survive and the weak die. Who are we to interfere?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's quite a leap from abortion. All I'm saying is let the "sports" be born, perhaps they will prove superior.
So I guess by extension we shouldn't feed the hungry, clothe the homeless, defend the weak against violence, cure the sick, etc...
Originally posted by DelmerIf one believes that abortion is wrong, and chooses not to interfere, one might not be interferring because one also think one knows what is best for the universe.
LOL! Of course we will interfere because each of us thinks we know what's best for the universe.
It isn't correct to say that those who think it immoral to interfere in some situation are the only people who might be suffering from egotistical presumption.