nemesis_juggernaut writes:
DNA, down to the last transposon, is exactly the same for both. That means they are no different, genetically, which renders your argument moot-- and genetically is the angle you were coming from with this argument.
Could you please point out where I concentrated on the genetic aspect of the matter? I have traced back our exchange and I can't find any mention of it in what I said. Maybe you are confused by the theme of the thread, where genetic ownership is discussed.
If mental capacity, at the time of death, is some how a (dis)qualifier in your mind, then make that your argument. You said that a fetus is just a clump of cells. If they are, then so are we since genetically we are one and the same.
I
have made that my argument. If you remember, I said:
quote:
We are not just any clump of cells. A large contingent of our cells forms a brain which is responsible for our having a personality. I'd say that constitutes a huge difference with an embryo of a few days old.
I think it is very reasonable to make a distinction between a clump of a dozen undifferentiated cells, where no mental processes of any kind take place, and an adult human being who very clearly is a clump of cells
with attitude, so to speak. So, yes, I do think that mental capacity is a part of the equation, I don't see why I shouldn't. After all, it's a rather conspicuous, if not dramatic difference, isn't it?
(Re "It is in God's hands": if you don't mind let's not pursue this issue any further because it is off-topic.)
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.