To: Modernman
I guess it comes down to the definition of "human" - you know, like "diamond" and "cubit zirconium". By all appearances, to the naked eye, they're similar. Underneath, they're something all together different.
56 posted on
02/09/2005 2:19:23 PM PST by
Rutles4Ever
(This is my tagline.)
To: Rutles4Ever
By all appearances, to the naked eye, they're similar. Underneath, they're something all together different.But these children would be indistinguishable "underneath" from any other random person-on-the-street.
62 posted on
02/09/2005 2:21:25 PM PST by
Chemist_Geek
("Drill, R&D, and conserve" should be our watchwords! Energy independence for America!)
To: Rutles4Ever
I guess it comes down to the definition of "human" - you know, like "diamond" and "cubit zirconium". By all appearances, to the naked eye, they're similar. Underneath, they're something all together different. Other than the method of conception, how do you think a child created by this process will be different? Do you think there will even be any way to tell such a child apart?
66 posted on
02/09/2005 2:23:30 PM PST by
Modernman
(What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson