Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (10616)	12/9/2010 8:51:01 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

I looked again and I didn't see where she said that the argument from viability was "evil", but perhaps I missed it. I did see where she said that the viability argument for Human personhood was arbitrary. Do you disagree with that? I also note (although she doesn't) that the age of viability keeps getting pushed back with medical advancement. This presents even further difficulties for the viability position. As a subset of the argument from ability, the argument for viability as a determiner of inclusion into humanity is very weak. "Unless we are willing to assign “personhood” proportionate to ability (young children, for example, might be only 20 percent human, while people with myopia 95 percent), the limited abilities of prenatal humans are irrelevant to their status as human beings." I agree with her. You might not like it, but I don't see it as illogical.