and therefore, why Plato's ANIMAL IMPLUME BIPES LATIS UNGUIBUS should not be a good definition of the name man, standing for that sort of creatures, will not be easy to show: for it is the shape, as the leading quality, that seems more to determine that species, than a faculty of reasoning, which appears not at first, and in some never. And if this be not allowed to be so, I do not know how they can be excused from murder who kill monstrous births, (as we call them,) because of an unordinary shape, without knowing whether they have a rational soul or no; which can be no more discerned in a well-formed than ill-shaped infant, as soon as born.
eta horregatik ez legoke erraz frogatzen Platonek gizakiaz emandako definizioa, animal implume bipes latis unguibus, zergatik ez den gizaki izenaren definizio ona, espezie horretako kreatura ordezkatzen duenez; izan ere, badirudi formak, koalitate gailen denez, gehiago mugatzen duela espezie hori, hasiera batean agertzen ez den-eta batzuetan inoiz ere ez-arrazoimenak baino. Eta hau horrela dela onartzen ez bada, ez dakit nola gera daitezkeen hilketa egitetik libre mustro jaiotakoak hiltzen dituztenak ezhoiko forma dutelako, arima arrazoidunik daukaten ala ez jakin gabe, hau ezin baita egikera oneko haur batengan errazago hauteman, egikera txarreko batengan baino.