> What's the definition of "fixed" and "broken" you're implicitly using in your argument?
Functionally according to its function. One's digestive organs are meant to digest; one's reproductive organs are meant to reproduce. Reproductive organs which can't reproduce are broken: fixing ones which are broken is indeed healthcare, while breaking ones which are fully-functioning is an elective procedure.
But "function" only exists for something that was created by intellectual being with a goal in mind. How can you define "function" for something that evolved naturally?
> But "function" only exists for something that was created by intellectual being with a goal in mind.
That doesn't bother me, since I think it's pretty obvious that there must be a prime mover of some sort.
> How can you define "function" for something that evolved naturally?
What it does. A kidney filters blood (and performs some other functions as well): a kidney which doesn't filter blood is obviously unhealthy. A heart pumps blood: a heart which fails to pump blood is obviously unhealthy. Gonads produce reproductive cells and introduce them to sexual partners: a set of gonads which don't produce such cells, or fail to introduce them to sexual partners, is obviously unhealthy.
At a higher level, an organism is a mechanism for propagating genes. An organism which propagates its genes fulfills its function; one which does not fails to fulfill its function (note that ensuring the propagation of one's relatives' similar genes can count as a partial fulfillment at least).
reply