First of all, they wouldn't really be ancestors of anyone today, by direct descent. Secondly, their genetics were sadly relegated to the dustbins of the natural system, as a result of their failure to reproduce.
Natural selection works both ways, and, as you posted earlier, we are "part of Nature's system" - isn't IVF a work-around of what nature proposes?
Why do you put Man outside the natural system? Surely he's a part of it, and as a consequence, so are his actions, part of the natural system, no matter what silly linguistic definitions or make-believe theology might have to say.
>>Why do you put Man outside the natural system?<<
Because we are.
We value a human life. YOU may not, but anyone with a lick of sense does.
When things get tough, animals kill other animals of their species. Dogs eat puppies, hamsters eat other hamsters, etc.
Glad you consider yourself with the hamsters. I’m well above that, thanks.
What "make-believe" theology have I used in this thread? And I'm using "silly lingustic definitions"? If every action of man is "natural" - your definition - then everything from the enrichment of Uranium to the Mars rover is natural. Further, murder is an action of man, and therefore natural under your definition - does that mean it should be permissible?
How do you derive a moral code by which to live? I will try and conform my arguments to that rationale, if possible.