Nannal> If personhood begins at birth as some would have you told, technically a human featus is not a human being and therefore eating it is not canibalism
[00:43] <DHR> I personally believe as soon as the egg becomes fertilised there is a person there
[00:44] <Nannal> so IVF is murder
several eggs are fertilised and only the select few are used
[00:45] this is preplanned, the soul is there and thus it is murder
[00:46] also a fertilised egg could split from days 1-14 and become twins
[00:47] so if we assume the exsistance of a soul, and state that the soul enters the body at fertilisation, doe a twin only have half a soul?

Think of the being the soul not having or attaining one.

SOLVED.

NEXT?

o wow sketchy, somehow made me lol... at probably the only slightly interlectual [might be bollox] thing uve ever said.

That was scottie and if there is no soul then we need to define the difference between humans, the eatables (anything else that moves really) and plants.

so if there is no souls I have a strong argument for cannibalism.

Erm, how?

Cannibalism involves eating the 'flesh' not the soul, and any current laws will only include eating the flesh and will not refer to a soul at all.

I don't know where your coming from, but you seem to be very mixed up in either the definition of a cannibal, the laws surrounding it or some strange mix of the two.

Mind you at the moment I don't think their are any laws against the act of cannibalism, merely the circumstances of obtaining the meat.

I think I may know how you are confused now, people are offered the placenta to eat, please look up that word also it does not contain any trace of a dead foetus.

Solved.

Next.

I'm sorry I didn't explain this properly, the reason we cant use law to determine ethics is because we use ethics to determine law, Imagine trying to build a bridge over a stream and making it out of water. If you don't get that, don't worry, The argument goes something like this, you can kill an animal but you cant kill a human. the difference between an animal and a human is the soul (as stated in the bible) therefore it is logical to assume you can kill things without souls, now here is where I brought in the idea of personhood (something you might want to take a quick look into as some people state that you become a person at birth (some say even later than that)) so if personhood is "awarded" at birth then before then you were not a person and if you're not a person but you meet the criteria for life then you must by all accounts either be a plant or an animal and thus, edible.

Considering the bible is one of the most - if not the most - illogical books ever written I don’t think you can base a logical argument from it. Humans are animals. Killing animals of another species for food is natural and in some cases, vital (cats). It’s rare in nature to eat members of your own species (snails being one of the exceptions) but circumstances permitting i.e. there already dead and/or your going to starve otherwise, go for it
i'd still say eating an unborn baby is canabalism, but assuming its dead whats the problem?

Ok, how else in the world would we create laws. The current laws around murder of a pregnant women (and thus the baby) suggest that in the eyes of the law that their is the existence of two people (Common sense). Then somehow using the bible which 99% of people in this country do not care for or follow is illogical, when law is created via common sense and precedent using the facts you would go to jail for you sick inhumane acts you would have no recourse in this country's legal system and most likely every others.

Randomly talking about oh the bible says XYZ and it is established by society that person hood is only given at birth is simply RETARDED. You ask ANY sane person if they think you have the right to eat a foetus just out of the womb and they will say no (and hopefully knock you out), also don't quote the bible unless you have actually read it and studied it for at least 20 years as otherwise you have no real understanding of it.


"then before then you were not a person and if you're not a person but you meet the criteria for life then you must by all accounts either be a plant or an animal and thus, edible."

Apart from your crazy hashed together theories which would not stand up against any legal system, any persons morale judgement and if you asked a bible scholar if they think you are correct what do you think they would honestly say?!

It's probably a lot more than 1% christian in the UK Scottie, if anything we are in the minority by having no religeon at all.

I'm not getting involved with anything concerning the bible or any other holy text. In my opinion abortion is wrong. Because you are simply commiting murder on a baby that has no choice. Which is why I am also so against people smoking/doing stupid things when they are pregnant. The baby does NOT have a choice. How is that fair? It's a human being afterall, even if it is not fully developed. Maybe IVF can be seen as murder, I think it mainly depends on how far along the development of a baby you can say it's a person. I personally believe maybe as little as instant to a week after becoming pregnant there is a person there. Someone who could grow into the next Einstien or something.

My father was partly christian until he lost his faith, and he was forced into it when he was young. He vowed that any children he had would be allowed to make their own choices about the world. Which he duly did.

I agree with McWill partly though. Some animals are naturally cannibals. Insects in particular. There are wasps that fill caterpillars with fertilised eggs and then the larvae eat the caterpillar from inside out. We have become the most dominant creature this planet has ever seen. We have the ability to kill any other animal, and eat if if we so wish. All predators MUST kill to survive. They are carnivores. I think the whole "Eating a baby" thing comes down to just how disgusted you might be. But reverse the situation, that's down to human conditioning. Throw it to a lion and it'll eat it no problem.

I love it when people say Humans aren't animals xD We're just highly evolved ones. Dolphins are generally considered the next smartest animals down the line from us, and they are nearly totally carniverous. We are mammals. We have live young (with the exception of the Enichoderms), suckle our young on milk and most mammals tend to invest a lot of work into their young (Especially humans). We are covered in hair and sweat.

What other class would we belong to?

[/rant] went kinda mega offtopic but lololololol

I meant that only 1% of the population that is christian goes to church the others have no faith and say they are Christian despite not being active.

<40% of the UK would describe themselves as an unbeliever and i think that includes agnostics. The >60% consist mostly of the 3 big religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) all of which are based on the old testament so the majority of people follow the bible to some degree.

I’d put money on more than 1% going to church as its compulsory for Muslims.

I was raised in a very religious family and in my experience that once you’re in a church, it’s very hard to get out… e.g. my granddad merely considers me a ‘bad catholic’ for not believing in god

Also, just to be picky, humans aren’t really as highly evolved as we like to think. (for starters Evolution is a lie LOL) but we are weak and slow and have poor hearing/eyesight/sense of smell/balance/endurance and we are completely pathetic as infants etc. but I think it’s safe to say were the smartest of animals.

I lol'd.

as for the evolution thing, our intelligence now dominates the physical factors, so natural selection is no longer a driving force in our evolution.

Yeah, I meant our brains have become far more complex than most animals. Obviously animals can communicate... But they can't (I doubt) do Maths, or think up creative solutions to problems. Like Skillers said, we do not need amazing endurance, hearing sight etc, because our intellect means we can invent things to improve them.

In terms of pure Human body (not counting intellect/brain size) we are a pathetic species. We have few (if any past Immune) automatic systems to prevent us from harm. I guess Adrenalin could be counted on that, but I guess a lot of animals have that. We aren't strong (Especially weak for our size actually), or fast (slower than all bipedal birds of similar height), we aren't defended from the extreme cold, extreme heat, we're pretty dam squishy compared to a lot of animals aswell (Like Elephants, Armadillo's and tortoises). We don't have spikes, horns or a defensive tail.

The size of our brain is the only reason we have floated to the top of the species domination list. That and opposable thumbs

[/rant] xD

indeed. we may not need those things but they sure would be useful.

were only going to get weaker too. as everything but our brains are becoming redundant.
some theory's state that we will reach our peek by the year 3000 then our reliance on medicine and technology will slowly degrees us to small childlike creatures with no physical use to anyone over the course of about 10,000 years. others say that the species will split and half will become troll like things, the others small childlike creatures with no physical use to anyone...

eventually, we have this to look froward too

its likely we'll kill ourselves long before then though

I'm not so sure. Remember we still have do something very physical like Sex and stuff, so

There may be a split between extreme intellect and physical brawn. Where one of the species would intellectually be greater than the other, but would be part of a Sympbiot partnership.

well that was more of a joke than srs. but we theoretically could loose the ability to reproduce eventually.