"You are so blinded by your dogmatism that you cannot see that what you are actually saying is embryo = human." and "I have no idea what you are talking about in your third paragraph regarding psychology, human sacrifice and abortion."
The topic is somewhat complex. Obviously, the second sentence I quoted invalidate the first sentence that I quoted. If you don't know what I am saying, you don't know that it is dogmatic.
Assume for the sake of argument that evolution is real. I realize that this might blow your mind, but just for the sake of argument assume that Darwin was right.
If Darwin was right, then we have instincts like other animals. We feel certain things to be true because of those instincts. Our ability to educate those instincts out of us does not exist. We have to be careful dealing with them and how we attempt to educate around them.
Those instincts are a part of our psychology, i.e. how we perceive the world. This is one manner in which the human or non-human status of the unborn can be determined.
Another manner is the question of when the unborn become sentient. That is a biological question. Both are issues of fact. One is a question of fact about how we are driven by instinct to perceive the world. The other is an issue of when an unborn becomes sentient.
There is no reason to believe that they are congruent. There is also no reason to believe that telling the vast masses of people that beings they are driven by instinct to recognize as human are not really human accomplishes that. No matter how clearly the factual evidence may prove that they are not sentient.
Sentient and human are not necessarily congruent either. Morons are human and chimpanzees are not, but chimps, gorillas and orangutans all have IQs higher than morons. Equating sentient with human is a straw horse argument. A popular one but not really relevant or material.
Now, when humans talk about killing something they are driven by instinct to perceive as human in order to produce miracle cures, there is an obvious paralel to the long standing and still ocurring practice of sacrificing human beings to produce miracles. Ergo, the psychological paralel between embryonic stem cell therapy and human sacrifice.
If you believe in evolution and are capable of logically working out its implications for this issue, you will understand what I am saying.
I am sure that you claim to believe in evolution. I am also sure that you completely reject any application of it in the real world. One of the most amusing ironies in this entire field of debate is that only a creationist could be in favor of abortion or embryonic stem cell therapy, logically speaking. While evolutionists should be adamantly opposed to them.
I got bored with playing video games so I visited again to futilely wave the flag of logic and factual reality in the face of the religious fanatics here.
