Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Shea  My point is that we're picking nits trying to draw a line to determine at what point a human embryo/fetus/etc gains a right to life. Why? Why shouldn't all human life be protected, regardless of what stage it's at? |
Morally is like art about drawing lines. You have to draw a line between morally right and morally wrong for rightness and wrongness to make sense.
Why isn't the line between being human and being nonhuman enough?
Because we will have beings in the future who share less DNA with us than we share with chimpanzees but who are still persons you have the same (or more) intelligence as we have.
I don't see how the amount of DNA we share with a creature has an influence of the right of that creature to live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Carlson IV You don't think very much in terms of "what could be" as opposed to "what is" do you? |
If you think in terms of "what could be" every woman who doesn't get the maximum amount of kids she could give birth to would be morally guilty.
Therefore it seems to be more reasonable to think in terms of "what is". The adult cow is more conscious than the embryo.