Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (146044)	4/23/2002 4:54:23 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575980

The concept of "equivalence" is inapplicable here; we would no sooner say a fetus is equivalent to a fully formed human than we would that you are equivalent to me. First of all, in the first trimester its not a fetus, its still in the embryonic stages. That means its essentially a clump of cells. Knowing you, I suspect that you would be insulted if you were called an embryo in place of the term, human. In fact, I would be insulted to be even called a fetus instead of human and the fetus at least can be considered a developing human. However, if you look at it by the most objective standard for evaluating such things, I think you'd agree that (1) both are living things, and (2) the DNA is similar. Yeah, and so were neanderthal men but again, if any of us were to be called an neanderthal instead of human, we would be insulted. The embryo is alive and functions in the way that an ameoba is alive and functions. In fact, except for the DNA, the embryo is far more similar to an amoeba than a human. I'm not sure what other objective, measurable standard you could apply. How much knowledge does one have versus the other? If you've ever seen a rotting fish covered with maggots, would you say the maggots are alive or dead? Frankly, I wouldn't look long enough to find out!