[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Okay, Sloth, just for you.
I’m so glad you brought up the soul. According to your beliefs, all human beings have souls. Let us not muddy the waters with Walter Miller’s assertion to the contrary that we don’t have souls, rather that we are souls temporarily encumbered by bodies. Humans have souls. The precise moment these souls are assigned by the Soul Fairy is not pertinent to our discussion right now. If we are to accept that all humans are animals (as of course they must be, being neither vegetable nor mineral) that all humans have souls, and that all humans are “persons”, can we then postulate simply that a “person” is an animal with a soul?
What is the soul? The Hebrew Bible uses two words predominantly to refer to the invisible animating force. They are nephesh (breath) and ruach (spirit). In Greek the words pneuma and psuche are used to refer to the same concepts. We could spend all day debating the changes in the uses of the terms between the Septuagint and the Koine New Testament, let us simply use these two concepts to imagine the soul as simultaneously the animating force or “breath” of life (pneuma), and the “spirit” (psyche), comprising consciousness, self-awareness and intellect, which separates us as individuals, an also separates us as a species from animals who do not posess this consciousness and self-awareness.
A dog may have pneuma, but probably does not have much going on in the psyche department. So a dog probably has no soul, and therefore is probably not a person (particularly golden retrievers, which, being gingers, are twice as soulless).
But what of Kanzi? Kanzi, remember, is the bonobo who can converse with scientists, reporters and other bonobos using pictographs not dissimilar to the Chinese characters (kanji) he is named after. He possesses all of the attributes of psyche: consciousness, self-awareness and intellect. He is capable of expressing abstract concepts. He has a sense of humor. He can express highly nuanced emotions not only through facial expression and vocalization, but through his pictorial language.
And now what of a severely disabled Down’s Syndrome person? Undeniably human, and no way one would or could deny that he has a soul. But how does his self-awareness, consciousness and intellect compare to that of Kanzi? If we insist on the existence of a soul in our Down’s Syndrome friend, but deny its existence in Kanzi, we are being inconsistent.
I have been laboring the point of the different number of chromosomes in “normal” humans (46), Down’s Syndrome people (47) and bonobos and chimps (48) for a reason. Between the 15th and 21st week of pregnancy, the presence of Down’s syndrome can be tested using amniocentesis. If the fetus has an extra chromosome (in this case a duplicated 21st chromosome), then it is a Down’s Syndrome person. No question.
At this point, I expect another split of opinions, and not necessarily along the pro- and anti-abortion lines. Let’s see.
I have met a number of Down’s Syndrome people, and they are some of the gentlest, sweetest people in the world. Their parents are some of the most patient, long-suffering people you can imagine, and I am ashame to say that I do not envy them one bit. People who go out of their way to adopt a Down’s Syndrome child are likewise especially commendable: the decision to adopt a person who will remain emotionally and mentally a small child or an infant (depending on the severity of the disability) all of its life, and likely die young into the bargain, must be even more difficult than the decision to carry it to term and raise it yourself.
When the results come back positive for Down’s, the obstetrician will, as a matter of procedure, give the family the option to terminate the pregnancy. Most families exercise this option. It may be easy to criticize a woman who would end the life of her baby for no other reason than that extra chromosome (that came from her bad egg in the first place), but I wouldn’t want to be the one to tell her she had no choice but to keep it.
Okay. Now we get into science fiction territory again. As I mentioned, I am convinced that chimpanzees and bonobos are similar enough to our species that a hybrid of chimp or bonobo and human is theoretically possible. Let us say that it is.
Let us now think once again about Kanzi, an adult male bonobo. As you may be aware, bonobos love sex. Chimps are all about power and control and rape and murder (just like us), but bonobos are lovers, not fighters. Let us imagine that Kanzi takes a fancy to one of his trainers, a 38-year old primatologist named Jane. After training one night, Jane and Kanzi decide to have a late dinner in the lab. They watch a movie (Rise of the Planet of the Apes, of course, Kanzi’s favorite), and afterwards they start talking (using the pictograms, of course). They talk of life and love and sunshine and flowers, of happiness and warmth. And marshmallows. Kanzi likes marshmallows.
They have a few drinks. They laugh. They tickle each other. They cuddle. One thing leads to another.
In the morning Jane is overcome by guilt and shame at what they’ve done. She begs Kanzi not to tell anyone about their night of passion. Kanzi gives his solemn word. Jane keeps her secret from her colleagues, and has almost forgotten her indiscretion when she realizes her period is late. A week goes by. Then another. Still doesn’t come. Panicking, she buys a pregnancy test and to her horror the test is positive.
Now for the questions.
Should she keep the baby? Consider that it was entirely consensual on both sides (Kanzi is a gentleman: he wouldn’t have forced her if she said no), and assume that she would be in no danger if she carried the baby to term. Besides, Jane is Catholic, and believes it would be anathema to kill her child.
Will the baby be human? Well, it will have 47 chromosomes: 23 from Jane and 24 from Kanzi. An amnio taken of Jane’s baby at 15 weeks indeed shows the baby it to have the extra 21st chromosome, and considering Jane’s age (right on the cusp of risky), the doctor naturally assumes Down’s Syndrome. The possibility that the father of the baby is a bonobo never enters his mind.
Now. Let us assume that the baby girl is born without complication. She exhibits some morphological and behavioral abnormalities (including abnormally dense lanugo) but these are consistent with the presumed genetic condition of the baby. Although the little girl (whom Jane and Kanzi have named “Tora”, after the Japanese word for “tiger”) seems to have a severe speech impediment due to an abnormally formed larynx, her development of manual dexterity and muscular coordination proceeds at a surprisingly rapid rate. She also seems to have inherited both Kanzi’s and Jane’s intelligence. Before long she has learned all of the pictograms that Kanzi knows, and Jane can scarcely keep up with her curiosity. Every day Jane must invent new pictograms to depict new concepts.
One day Tora notices the gold crucifix around Jane’s neck. She asks, using the pictograms, “who little man on tree?” Over the next week, Jane tells her daughter about God, Jesus, sin, heaven, hell, forgiveness and the soul.
So here is the big question. Tora understands about sin. She understand about heaven and hell. She understands about the soul and salvation.
Does she have a soul to save? How about her father? Why or why not?[/quote]
Not a lot of time right now, but I thought I’d at least drop a short reaction.
You’re a creative (and intelligent) guy.
So, respectfully…huh?!
This started with a question about a human born without legs because a biological definition associated bipedalism with our species. I pointed out that our classification is more dependent on a totality of structures, functions, lineage, and the molecular.
So from there you began to ask about a scenario in which many, many, many generations of reproductive isolation have gone by, resulting in the “Limbies” and “Torsoids.”
Now we’re considering offspring issuing from the successful mating of a bonobo and a human. After a romantic night of watching Planet of the Apes, I suppose.
You yourself have called it sci-fi, so I don’t think it’s offensive for me to borrow your own characterization of these scenarios.
I’m concerned with what we know as abortion. And, now, with the logical justification for extending abortion to infants. I’ll let the Limbies and Torsoids-or, Ceaser and Dr. Cornelius–argue the issue if their sci-fi society ever emerges. Right now our species includes those born with DS, or without legs. No, it’s great sci-fi, don’t get me wrong. However, it’s a lousy debate, in my opinion. I just don’t have the time to wrestle down every imaginable hypothetical.
As far as souls, and the salvation of sci-fi non-humans, I have no interest in the debate. Rather, I just want to talk about infanticide and abortion of members of our species today. Not of animal-human hybrids, alien life forms, robots, and far future post-human populations.
Despite how this may read, I intend no offense.
