tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post1625263928355934999..comments2023-09-11T08:30:08.843-07:00Comments on Life Training Institute Blog: Why Embryos Don't Seem Human [SK]SKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905606527143286458noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-20035779431726966602008-11-18T14:52:00.000-08:002008-11-18T14:52:00.000-08:00Excellent post Scott.Besides getting basic factual...Excellent post Scott.<BR/><BR/>Besides getting basic factual information in front of the public, it's a challenge to convey it in a way that both makes sense and is authoritatively acceptable.<BR/><BR/>It would seem that the way to do this would be at a very early age, where children don't have many preconceived notions. Unfortunately, the schools are playing interference with even basic human development. They are systematically removing it as a subject in all areas - including sex-ed, says my high school senior daughter. (That may be beneficial, because taboo topics are usually pursued by the curious).<BR/><BR/>Language use is also complicit - the construction view falls in line with the term re-"production" as opposed to the term "procreation". In some of the newer dictionaries if you look up procreation, it simply says reproduce, as though humans are simply products.<BR/><BR/>The incremental changes have been broadly systemic. If you're addressing things at the apologetic level, it may be too late.Chris Arsenaulthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773858656968422745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-36839980575925498832008-11-18T10:56:00.000-08:002008-11-18T10:56:00.000-08:00Excellent post, and excellent point. I will defin...Excellent post, and excellent point. I will definetely incorporate this into my apologetic against abortion and destructive embryonic research.Jason Dullehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16840891072959191210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-57163893524032065692008-11-18T09:47:00.000-08:002008-11-18T09:47:00.000-08:00jay,Good question regarding "the future like ours"...jay,<BR/>Good question regarding "the future like ours" and I actually thought that myself, but changed my mind upon further reflection. The reason is that Stith says up front "each of your friends was once an embryo," meaning we are identical to our embryonic selves. (Don Marquis, with his "future like ours" argument, more or less denies.) The key distinction, I think, is between the embryo existing and the embryo one day becoming your friend. Existence for that embryonic human being is immediate. Friendship with that same human being is in the future.SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01905606527143286458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-17894023054055662512008-11-18T08:52:00.000-08:002008-11-18T08:52:00.000-08:00First of all, GREAT POST.Now."Thus the most arrest...First of all, GREAT POST.<BR/><BR/>Now.<BR/><BR/>"Thus the most arresting way to put the developmental case against embryo-destructive research would be something like this: “Each of your friends was once an embryo. Each embryo destroyed could one day have been your friend."<BR/><BR/>Doesn't this statement wander into the "Furture like ours" argument? Maybe I am a little rusty from focusing on the baby, but if I read that right I disagree with his assessment that this is the most arresting argument.<BR/><BR/>Otehrwise I love the overall point being made. That is why I cringe a bit when people show graphic images without a strong base of logical argument. I abhor the idea that abortion is wrong because the unborn look like little babies. That is great for abortion but works against embryo destructive research.Jay Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11298001988620531769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-86814990805441880092008-11-18T08:47:00.000-08:002008-11-18T08:47:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jay Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11298001988620531769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-45706445280297437482008-11-18T08:36:00.000-08:002008-11-18T08:36:00.000-08:00People don't think human embryos "look human" beca...People don't think human embryos "look human" because they're not accustomed to seeing human beings that age. An embryologist would have no trouble whatsoever with identifying the embryo as human.<BR/><BR/>There was a time when White people thought Blacks didn't look "human" -- they were used to people with pale skin, different hair texture, different shaped facial features, etc. Since they weren't accustomed to seeing the full variety of human form, they didn't recognize Africans as human.<BR/><BR/>Imagine a crew of Earth astronauts encountering an alien race. The aliens would see the adults and see them as representative humans. Would these aliens be able to immediately recognize a human infant as human, this big-headed, toothless, bald, speechless, helpless creature?<BR/><BR/>I had a Korean student tell me that I had cat eyes, that human eyes aren't supposed to be green. My eyes didn't look human to her because she hadn't been exposed to humans who looked like me.<BR/><BR/>So there's a lot to be said with how informed and experienced the beholder is when observing who "looks human".Christina Duniganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04785550737493692252noreply@blogger.com