Most (if not all) pro-lifers I've talked to say it is morally permisible to take the life of a non-human primate (like a chimp or bonabo), if it is needed for meat or is doing something like destroying your crops.
But they say it is not OK to end the life of a zygote or embryo.
But what if some other non-human primates had not gone extinct?
What if today their were extant Australopithecus, or Homo habilis? Would it be OK or not to take their lives or to abort their young?
Where do you draw the line, and why?
PLEASE, if you are a evolution denier, don't answer my question.
2007-01-05 15:39:36 · 9 answers · asked by skeptic 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
EDIT: Unfortunately, no one has really answered the question.
2007-01-06 02:49:48 · update #1
It is sheer ignorance to put human life on the same value level as animals no matter what you believe! People have (or should have) the intelligence to make choices instead of going with their baser nature and just doing whatever feels good to them or whatever temptation comes their way. That negates the rest of the question, period since humans are not equal to animals. They have souls. Therefore you do not have a moral dilemma afterwords only the use of good common sense to have dominion over animals but not to abuse creation for the sake of shedding blood and being cruel.
2007-01-05 16:11:42 · answer #1 · answered by Lovin' Mary's Lamb 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
It is immoral to value non-human life at the same level as human life, in almost every moral philosophy. It is also counter to evolution, which many atheists would point out, if they cared...
A Satanist might consider whichever promoted the most good for himself in the most "prudent" way, which would, in most cases, be an abortion.
The basic point here, is that this question is a balance of 2 assumptions.
First, is an embryo an innocent human life and therefore killing it unjust?
Second, is human life more valuable than non-human life?
I let my yes be just that yes to both questions. If the difference between the "scientific" species was very minor, then I would argue that the species are not fundamentally different enough. But, I don't know that.
2007-01-05 17:48:31 · answer #2 · answered by BigPappa 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
earlier I answer your question, might want to I ask why you try to exclude "evolution deniers"? Why are you except should you deny a concept it truly is really a idea besides -- and one it truly is not supported by the fossil record? we are saying this is not okay to end the existence of a human embryo, because the operative be conscious there is "human." Human existence starts at idea -- it can't probably initiate everywhere else. consequently, it truly is inaccurate to take that existence at any time. speaking about non-human primates contained in the middle of an abortion debate is an fullyyt moot and irrelevant element. Abortion as an ethical debate element is composed of HUMAN existence, not primate existence. in case you want to communicate the taking of non-human primate existence, take it up on some animal-rights communicate board. It would not belong in an abortion communicate. .
2016-12-01 21:44:55 · answer #3 · answered by lemmer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Homo sapiens, for the most part, believes that it is ok to take the life of anything except members of its own species.
I would not kill non-human primates for meat or because it was a nuisance. I would find another food source or relocate them. I am an atheist, and I believe that, although our evolutionary paths diverged long ago, those are my cousins and I don't like the idea of killing relatives.
I am also pro-choice, and I believe that a fetus becomes a person when it becomes viable.
2007-01-05 15:45:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good question.
I'm pro-choice so I guess this question doesn't apply to me, but I would say that killing a bonobo is not permissible unless there is a sound reason. Like they are diseased and could spread infection to humans or something.
As far as destroying zygotes or embryos, I believe it's the patient's choice and nobody elses.
2007-01-05 15:45:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
You seem to spend an awful lot of time trying to limit how people answer your questions or who is allowed to answer them.
Are your beliefs that weak that you need to protect them.
You sound more like the Christians than the Christians do.
love and blessings Don
2007-01-05 15:45:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
why not draw the line at murder of humans
2007-01-05 16:13:46 · answer #7 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
evolution is false. you are making theories about something that was proved false by your precious scientists.
2007-01-05 16:00:52 · answer #8 · answered by Thumbs down me now 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Ok, I won't answer it then.
:-/
2007-01-05 15:43:07 · answer #9 · answered by . 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋