|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
I'm still questioning the humanity of fetuses
Posted on: June 5, 2008 - 3:57pm
   Offline
I'm still questioning the humanity of fetuses
I made a video in response to this video: Here is my video: Any thoughts?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
...hey... im trying to eat here! hehe
Whoops, the actual opposing video is here:
The music for my video can be found at my band page (under construction) here: http://machinecult.googlepages.com/
If I may play critic for just a second, I'm a pretty fast reader, but I found myself having to go back a couple of times to catch all the text. The thing is, your images are striking, and they slow down the reading process considerably.
Other than that, you make an excellent point. As I said in the other thread, I stand by the statement that a thing in a belly is a fetus, and a thing out of the belly is a human. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
I've never heard a scientist refer to an embryo from any other species as that species. They call it a "Duck embryo" or "chimpanzee embryo" if they assign a species to it at all.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Technically, the thing in the womb and out of it are both human. That isn't the question we should be asking. We should be asking whether the thing in the womb and outside of it is a PERSON. A PERSON and a human are two different entities. Terry Shiavo was a human, she most certainly was no longer a person when she was taken off life support.
The question of concern, ultimately, is when does a fetus become a person, not whether or when a fetus becomes human - and this is a subjective issues, though it can be approached objectively. For example, an infant is able to distinguish between self and other and has the capacity for intermodal communication and proprioreceptive awareness, a zygote does not.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I suppose that's a reasonable point. I have to admit, it's never come up in a biology text or class. (Due to irrelevance, as much as political correctness, I would wager.)
I also think maybe it's just a difference in colloquial usage. I use "human" pretty much interchangeably with "person." When I want to talk about us scientifically, I try to use Homo sapien.
Right. As usual, I think we are in pretty much complete agreement with language differences.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Just out of curiosity when do the any of the sensory organs become capable of functioning?
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Just out of curiosity when do the any of the sensory organs become capable of functioning?
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.