From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue May 14 2002 - 08:01:17 MDT
On Tuesday, May 14, 2002, at 02:52 am, Alex Ramonsky wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Species are generally distinguished by:
>> 1. ability to mate
>> 2. ability to have children
>>
>> By this definition all children born with the
>> appropriate genitalia can mate. All
>> children born with regular eggs and sperms
>> and normal plumbing, and the appropriate chromosomes may have
>> children. Yah!! Babies deserve to live.
>>
>
> Huh?...You mean if my son gets his private parts pulled off in an
> accident, he's no longer human?
I don't know why, but there seems to be a tendency to talk about
reproduction in this group instead of genetics. DNA makes us human.
Sexual activity has nothing to do with it. Celibate priests, gays, old
people, young people, eunuchs, transgendered people, sterile people and
sexually inactive people are still human. Sexual preferences, sexual
activity and reproduction have almost nothing to do with DNA, genetics
and evolution. I don't know why this is so confusing for some people.
Specifically, the above argument contains the logical fallacy known as
"denial of the antecedent". If A implies B, it is invalid to disprove A
in an attempt to disprove B. If mating proves species inclusion, it is
a mistake to disprove ability to mate in an attempt to disprove species
inclusion. Mating can prove species inclusion. Not mating proves
nothing.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:04 MST