Dear Runner,

You have a point there, but why use the unborn as an example for murder while hundreds of thousands of animals are slaughtered every day in Australia alone?

They too get no voice - and are more developed, physically, mentally and emotionally than most of the unborn you speak for.

Another point, Bempec: those so-called "religions" of the middle-east are no religions at all, but pure nationality in the guise of religion. Indeed, things would be great if there was no nationality, but as I explained above, nationality is a symptom of cities and cities are a symptom of overpopulation.

The bottom line is not about hatred. The bottom line is that if you overpopulate, and if nature does not provide its own disasters, then you will have to start killing the excess population, under this guise or another. If you want murder to stop, you must cut drastically on procreation.

Yuyutsu

If you were a lifeguard and you saw a dog and child drowning who would you rescue first? That might give you your answer.

Runner,

A chimpanzee develops mentally at the same rate as a human baby and toddler, up to the age of 3, but then stops.

Other animals (except possibly dolphins, whales and elephants) stop developing mentally earlier than 3 years - but evidence shows that they still develop after birth.

So comparing a 3-year old child with a 3-year old dog should indeed favour the child. However, comparing an unconscious 3-month fetus with a fully-conscious 3-year old cow should favour the cow.

Yuyutsu,

'A chimpanzee develops mentally at the same rate as a human baby and toddler, up to the age of 3, but then stops. '

So I take it you believe a 3 year old chimp is worth rescuing more than a 1 year old baby boy or girl? The idiotic evolution theory has certainly brainwashed you to not be able to discern the difference between a human life and that of an animal.

Dear Runner,

"So I take it you believe a 3 year old chimp is worth rescuing more than a 1 year old baby boy or girl?"

The question of worth does not come into it. Naturally if the boy or girl were mine, or my relatives then I would rather save them because they would be worth more to me. OTOH, if I raised up the chimp, then it would be worth more to me than the child. Acting on that basis, in both cases, would be selfish.

On pure moral grounds, however, the primary aim is to avoid causing suffering to others. A 3 year old chimp is likely to suffer more from dying than a 1 year old boy or girl and therefore should have a higher priority for saving.

"The idiotic evolution theory has certainly brainwashed you to not be able to discern the difference between a human life and that of an animal."

What's evolution got to do with it? I am not looking at how the chimp or dog or cow or human came about, but at how much suffering will be incurred in them dying. I don't know who brainwashed you into believing that a human life is different in principle than that of animals - perhaps the meat industry!

Yuyutsu

you ask 'What's evolution got to do with it? '

Generally people who put the lives of animals above or on equal terms to that of humans subscribe to this ridiculous faith as justification.