“To discriminate as to which human beings are *human enough* to deserve protection from killing ignores science, which gives us more information about embryology and human development than the Romans had.”
Who is and is not *human enough* is as I said is a religious question of morality not that of scientific hypothesis.
It is no different then for you to say this is mine and that is yours. Nature (science) cares not to whom we humans judge an object belongs but only that the object exist. We humans on the other hand make that judgement based upon our cultural(religious) values & understandings of property rights.
I know this because there exist species & cultures that do not understand property rights.
My friend hocndoc, you confuse 2 different aspects, one of moral in judgement & qualification, the other physical.
It is akin to trying to mix the dictionary’s of two different languages.
The definition of life in the agreed language of scientist is not necessarily the same same as the definition of human or (Insert citizenship) life in the opinion of the State.
Nor is either necessarily the same as the definition of human life in religion.
Our books were not written by the same people looking for the same things & agreeing upon the same values.
You know had the Federal cot left row vs. wade well enough alone we wouldn’t have to bother with this. But no they had to insert themselves into a clearly state affair. Question whether or not the State of Texas regarded the unborn as living humans, and decide on that basis whether or not it could protect them as one of its citizens.
But instead we are forced by Federal injustice system into splitting the hairs between the moral qualification of human life and the scientific qualification.
I and (I beleive) my State naturally is in agreement with your position on the definition of life. New York, New & Old England, China, and Vermont are not.
It is not a matter of personal opinion that embryonic humans are humans. It’s a matter of taxonomy, and scientifically documented that the offspring of a given species are members of that species.
It’s you who are confusing morality and science.
Break the egg of a bird, turtle, or lizard on the Endangered species list and it won’t matter that the animal couldn’t survive or was an embryo or fetus. The Feds know that an embryonic pelican is a pelican.
We don’t have the same protection for our own children of tomorrow that we give lesser species, although we are the only species having the conversation in the first place.
Discrimination between members of a species is much more a “religious” or moral decision than whether or not a given individual is a member of that species.