The Pope is dead
Out of context: Reply #293
- Started
- Last post
- 418 Responses
- ********0
I believe that humans are not animals to be categorized the same as a chicken. We have the ability to reason, think and express emotion and have been created with a certain dignity...
discipler
(Feb 24 05, 11:18)
+++++++++++++++++++
See discipler, this is the inherent hiporacy and/or inconsistency in ur argument.So u just said that u value human life more than that of chickens because "We have the ability to reason, think and express emotion and have been created with a certain dignity".
And then you claim that a fertilised embryo (which is only a fraction of a millimeter) is also equal to being human (in this case its mother who is a murderer if she aborts it) despite the fact that it doesn't "have the ability to reason, think and express emotion".
This is inconsistent because 60% of a chicken's gene's are identical to human genes. As according to the United States National Human Genome Research Institute
"About 60 percent of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene."
http://www.genome.gov/12514316
Either u think a chicken is 60% human (if an embryo is 100% human) or neither embryo nor chicken are human as they lack "the ability to reason, think and express emotion" (even tho a chicken has significantly higher cognitive abilities than an embryo at the moment of conception)
Before u start telling me, yes chickens should be treated with a bit of respet cos they're 60% human. Also note that a fruit fly also shares 60% of its genes with human beings.
http://www.genome.gov/11509542#6…
You might also say that mice are human, using ur logic. Because the human genome is practically identical to that of the mouse. Which is why mice are so important in research into gene therapy (one of the many benefit of Evolutionary biology and the theory of evolution).
"Overall, mice and humans share virtually the same set of genes."
http://www.genome.gov/10001345
Which brings be back to my initial point, that rights and wrongs of abortion have nothing to do with science. They are moral and ethical questions purely, because life itself is a metaphysical concept and not a scientific one. Because science is purely a language and a perspective. It is not there to reveal God, it cannot do this. It doesn't have the equipment.
Some biologists say that something is alive if it responds to stimulus, respires, eats, grows, and reporduces. Well these things can all be simulated mechanically, but few would think a programmed machine that displays these abilities is "alive". Other crazy hippy types believe that earth is one giant organism, and the earth is actually alive - from the clouds to the rocks to the lava to the trees.
I think that "life" is just a word that humans use to understand and interact with their environments and is no more real than when we call organised pieces of wood, table. And all that science has revealed about "life" is that it is a system that helps other similar systems interact with each other.
I think that human life, at least sentience, is a metaphysical, philosophical concept. Something that occurs when they human brain is developed enough, when neurons in the mind matter start connecting, and nerve endings join that some sort of “awakening” happens. And at that point a zygote/embroy/foetus, is human. And that is purely subjective interpretation.
So in my opinion a tiny fertilised egg, smaller than the thickness of human hair, is not a human being.
And do us all a favour. Abandon ur pseudo-religio-science. Theology and Science are two fundamentally opposing languages that cannot be reconciled. Sufficiently intellectual relgions like Hinduism know this, but it’s more difficult with the kind of backwards Christianity u seem to preach. (discipler).
*deep breath
thank you.
*takes a bow