This debate has gotten a lot of people arguing about cells; when they are 'alive' and when they are 'dead'; when are they 'human', when are they not... Frankly, a lot of the opinions provided seem ill-informed and jejune; it is entirely possible that this is merely because the proponents of those opinions have failed to provide their rationale.
Personally, I believe that life has no distinct beginning, and a nebulous-at-best end; there-fore, I tend to lean towards the most mathematically viable option. For instance, this embryo's destruction may lead to a cure for Parkinson's Disease. One embryo is less than several million sufferers of Parkinson's. Death to the embryo, as it were. Also, there is a growing embryo/foetus in a woman; she cannot go through the pregnancy with her health: back problems, possibly pre-natal fatality, etcetera. Again, death to the embryo. Suppose she's fine and healthy, but cannot financially support the child. This one's trickier. I lean towards early-term abortion, but not late term. Once the child starts to develop a nervous system, I get uncomfortable. Even then though, I value the mother's life more; if she can't reasonably go through with the pregnancy and birth, let her choose to abort or not. She can make another one at a later date, when she's healthier.
This kind of thinking also leads me to believe that vegetarianism (and especially veganism) is a silly idea. No type of organism is 'better' than another; a cow has as much right to life as a human. Of course, the opposite is also true. Additionally, humans are designed (whether by God, gods, evolution, or some combination of the above) to eat plants AND meat; there are eight essential amino acids that humans cannot produce. Humans are supposed to consume fats and cholesterol, which are difficult or impossible to find in plants. We are supposed to eat other organisms. Get over it.
It also seems to produce a dichotomy: so you won't eat meat; why will you eat plants? Why is meat 'better' than plants? How do you feel about micro-organisms?
If any-one can tell me, phlegmatically and reasonably, why they believe some-thing counter to what I do, I would be grateful. Oh, and if one of those reasons is a religious doctrine, tell me what it is, and even explain it if you so choose, but no attempts at conversion, please. My religion is my business, not yours.
I'd say that's because, whether you believe we evolved to do so, were made by God to do so, or some combination there-of, human beings are designed for a diet consisting of plants and animals. As heterotrophs, we cannot subsist of sunlight water and carbon dioxide; we need to consume other organisms for glycolysis and amino acid synthesis, as well as the vitamins, minerals, and trace nutrients we require.
Ostensibly, you oppose the killing of other organisms; does that extend to micro-organisms? If not, why? They're just as live and viable as macro-organisms; do you never brush your teeth? Do you eschew anti-biotics? Would you let an infestation of crawling nematodes destroy your sub-cutaneous tissue? Why not? They're alive; you can even see them!
As to dignity, I think that it is more dignified for a pig to be slaughtered and be eaten (some-thing that's been happening to pigs for millennia, before humans were in the picture at all) than to die and thrown away to waste; in NATURE, nothing ever goes to waste. Ever. Why is it better for bacteria to consume a pig than me? Are bacteria better than I am? What makes *my* cell inferior to those present in non-human creatures?
Truly, you are a hypocrite with no under-standing, and likely a protein deficiency. Enjoy the loss of your hair.
Slashdot Mirror
This debate has gotten a lot of people arguing about cells; when they are 'alive' and when they are 'dead'; when are they 'human', when are they not... Frankly, a lot of the opinions provided seem ill-informed and jejune; it is entirely possible that this is merely because the proponents of those opinions have failed to provide their rationale.
Personally, I believe that life has no distinct beginning, and a nebulous-at-best end; there-fore, I tend to lean towards the most mathematically viable option. For instance, this embryo's destruction may lead to a cure for Parkinson's Disease. One embryo is less than several million sufferers of Parkinson's. Death to the embryo, as it were. Also, there is a growing embryo/foetus in a woman; she cannot go through the pregnancy with her health: back problems, possibly pre-natal fatality, etcetera. Again, death to the embryo. Suppose she's fine and healthy, but cannot financially support the child. This one's trickier. I lean towards early-term abortion, but not late term. Once the child starts to develop a nervous system, I get uncomfortable. Even then though, I value the mother's life more; if she can't reasonably go through with the pregnancy and birth, let her choose to abort or not. She can make another one at a later date, when she's healthier.
This kind of thinking also leads me to believe that vegetarianism (and especially veganism) is a silly idea. No type of organism is 'better' than another; a cow has as much right to life as a human. Of course, the opposite is also true. Additionally, humans are designed (whether by God, gods, evolution, or some combination of the above) to eat plants AND meat; there are eight essential amino acids that humans cannot produce. Humans are supposed to consume fats and cholesterol, which are difficult or impossible to find in plants. We are supposed to eat other organisms. Get over it.
It also seems to produce a dichotomy: so you won't eat meat; why will you eat plants? Why is meat 'better' than plants? How do you feel about micro-organisms?
If any-one can tell me, phlegmatically and reasonably, why they believe some-thing counter to what I do, I would be grateful. Oh, and if one of those reasons is a religious doctrine, tell me what it is, and even explain it if you so choose, but no attempts at conversion, please. My religion is my business, not yours.
I'd say that's because, whether you believe we evolved to do so, were made by God to do so, or some combination there-of, human beings are designed for a diet consisting of plants and animals. As heterotrophs, we cannot subsist of sunlight water and carbon dioxide; we need to consume other organisms for glycolysis and amino acid synthesis, as well as the vitamins, minerals, and trace nutrients we require.
Ostensibly, you oppose the killing of other organisms; does that extend to micro-organisms? If not, why? They're just as live and viable as macro-organisms; do you never brush your teeth? Do you eschew anti-biotics? Would you let an infestation of crawling nematodes destroy your sub-cutaneous tissue? Why not? They're alive; you can even see them!
As to dignity, I think that it is more dignified for a pig to be slaughtered and be eaten (some-thing that's been happening to pigs for millennia, before humans were in the picture at all) than to die and thrown away to waste; in NATURE, nothing ever goes to waste. Ever. Why is it better for bacteria to consume a pig than me? Are bacteria better than I am? What makes *my* cell inferior to those present in non-human creatures?
Truly, you are a hypocrite with no under-standing, and likely a protein deficiency. Enjoy the loss of your hair.