QUACK BIOLOGY

No. If we accept Peter Singer's definition of personhood and its application to non-human animals (which I do), you could logically argue that a foetus is less of a person than a pig. But a pig is not human and so cannot be more or less human than anything human.

Really, not only is Dicky  a biologist who appears to have some very basic misunderstandings about the difference between ungulates and primates but he is also an Englishman who can't spell "foetus." The latter shortcoming is unforgivable even if the first can be overlooked because he's probably never set foot in a muddy farmyard in his life.

Comments

QUACK BIOLOGY — 1 Comment

  1. I don’t think Dawkins is right, but I’m not sure what you’re saying here, either.

    I believe “personhood” (or humanness) is defined by sentience, not DNA (Homo sapiens or Sus domesticus).

    I eat pig, because before I was introduced to ethical ponderings re life, and what makes life sacred—much less porcine intelligence—I was introduced to pork’s deliciousness. But I’m not proud I eat it, certainly!

    I can’t imagine being in a position to eat a 1st trimester Homo sapiens embryo. Certainly it’s not an appealing thought. But if I ate some unawares, and it was delicious, I can’t imagine being too broken up about it, ethically. [I hope that makes sense!]