Re: Missing the woods for the trees
Thanks again for taking the time reply, especially in such detail, bar the opening judgement on my credibility which I have no interest in - If you (and others) think I'm a fool then so be it, at least I had the bottle to speak my mind amongst an audience which, as you mentioned, have their beliefs firmly grounded in scientific method.
Please ignore my previous flippancy in response to Vociferous, I do not believe that an adult and a group of cells in an early fetus are rationally equivalent at all - I simply grow tired of people assuming on the basis of my views that I'm not aware of this. He addressed me like a cretin and perhaps got a cretinous reply.
I, like you, consider myself open minded. Right now, and throughout this conversation, I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything - how can I claim to have the "right" opinion on something so complicated where forming an argument with evidence, reasoning, logic and rationale deserves more than the 10-15 minutes of time allocated for writing a comment on The Register. I'm simply sharing an opinion, and I am listening to yours. That is all.
You have defined the parameters of our debate in "The Borg" style fashion (to paraphrase: strength is irrelevant. death is irrelevant. you will be assimilated) by defining what is relevant and what is not but I argue that those relevancies are to you and not the topic as a whole. Empathy and emotion are part of what makes us more than the chemical machines you have clearly defined and why as a species we do not always choose the (sometimes blindingly obvious) logical solution to our problems. You may point out the irony that these feelings are a result of a biological process in themselves - I don't however think that this is a reason to ignore them.
I realise that we are now clearly off-topic of the original news story, so I invite any closing comments you may have on our discussion, however, I think I've said what I came here to say and therefore "I rest my case".