(March 16, 2013 at 5:22 am)catfish Wrote:(March 16, 2013 at 5:18 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: What is extremely funny is that 'pro-lifers' argue that a foetus is a human at say 0-13 weeks when clearly it is more liken to a fish and would considered an abomination in their ever loving eyes should it be born. The fact that it would not survive is also another laughable point yec/ pro-lifers neglect to mention.
So pathetic! catfud..go and study biology 101 BASICS .... seriously
What species is a human fetus? Answer the question honestly if you can.
It's human, you dolt. It has human DNA, but that doesn't make it a person. It doesn't even make it an actual human, since not all things that have human DNA are humans; your hair is genetically human, but your hair is not a human.
Kichi's point was never that the fetus magically became a fish, just that physically it has much more in common with those species at that point in development. Given the criteria most rational people use to determine humanity- which you obviously don't use, given that genetic material is all you need to confer human status to a thing- then the fetus would not be human by those criteria.
See, generally speaking, biology wants exactness from its definitions, and your definition of a human- "a human is something with human DNA"- is not only vague, it's a tautology. So you either need to amend your fucking definition, in which case you're in trouble, or you need to keep insisting on the inaccurate one, in which case the argument is over because you're demonstrably wrong.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!