View Single Post
Old 02-02-2009, 08:34 PM   #8
SkinWalker's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Look I'm not superstitious, I'm religious
I could easily make the argument that these are equivalent terms, but this is, perhaps, for a different thread, so I'll take you at your word

and a baby is not the equivalent of an appendix.
Nor have I said so. Nor is an embryo the equivalent of a baby. A "baby" is a infant human. An embryo is a collection of cells -a blastocyst of a few hundred cells even, which has the potential to become a fetus which, in turn, has the potential to become a baby.

An embryo is not a person by any definition of the word. It is every bit as human as an appendix or a clump of hair pulled out at the root in my comb as it has the DNA of a human. But it is not a person.

The only way to define it as a person is to invoke superstition.

There is an ethical issue here, it has nothing to do with superstition.
It has everything to do with superstition since the only way to come to the conclusion that an embryo equivocates to a person is to invoke superstition.

A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: