Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 6 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 100% |
Arguments: | 3 |
Debates: | 1 |
I don't believe people are on the no side because of those two options given. A human is defined as "1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. 2. A person 3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans 2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals 3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans 4. Having the form of a human. 5. Made up of humans." In the early embryonic stages, many animals look the same. A human embryo looks like a chicken embryo that looks like a whale embryo. So you can't really distinguish it from another animal. And as for the "subject to the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans," and "Having the form of a human," it can't have the weakness, imperfections, nor fragility of a human because it technically can't. It also doesn't have the form of a human. Where are the arms? The legs? The face? It doesn't look, act, or have the same flaws like us. Our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, has a 96% DNA match with us. Even humans have a DNA difference. We have a 99.9% DNA match with eachother. So whos genetic code does that embryo have? Mine? Yours?
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |