Seriously, I believe the essential problem is that we don't want to get used to treating beings who look, seem and feel human, as non-human. We want to, and are, moving in the opposite direction.
Man's inhumanity to man is worse than cancer.
Seriously, I believe the essential problem is that we don't want to get used to treating beings who look, seem and feel human, as non-human. We want to, and are, moving in the opposite direction.
Man's inhumanity to man is worse than cancer.
I just checked and it still happens today, it probably happens with many other indirect translations with ambiguous intermediate words.
An animal with high cognitive function is a person.
> Man's inhumanity to man is worse than cancer.
A brainless human has no rights, no feelings, and never existed as a conscious entity. It's a tool.
The inability to accept this as a remarkable solution is beyond disappointing.
> we don't want to get used to treating beings who look, seem and feel human, as non-human.
Doing so might enable you to counter it. Or at least, understand where others are coming from. Let me parallel your claims:
> A baby is a human without a mind - therefore not a person. A baby is an animal without high cognitive function. A mindless human has no rights, no feelings, and never existed as a conscious entity. It's a tool. Babies fail the self-awareness mirror test (until about 15-24 months).
Do you feel comfortable doing this to other people's infants? How about your own first born?