I said yes, but only for the reason that the question was misasked. The question should have been "Are you a person" Because what is being asked in the yes or no statements of the asker, is nothing about being a human being, and only involves if you do or don't have ethics, a conscious, or anything like that. Which became obvious to me at this point.
Are you a human? The answer: Yes you are, no question to debate at all, the real issue here is, are you a person?
Looking at this tomorrow, I think that I will find my point masked, because it is very late for me here, and I do hope that anyone who reads it will see my point for me.
Why does a 'human' have to be unique or worthy? As humans we do not ask to be born, but we are and for the most part we just roll with it. More so, who defines 'worthy' that question pissed me of a tad I think, not as a person, but as a devout atheist. Because the first thing I thought about was the asker was defining 'god' as the person who makes you worthy, because if not 'it' then who, the asker, a hobo? But then I stopped to think, what if the asker was asked what makes him worthy to be a human, should he/she think so at all. If the choice was left up to the religious 'god' that some people try very hard to convince me exists, but I am either not deranged, or pious, enough to believe that at all. So I ask you this and this onlyWhat makes you unique and worthy of the life that was given to you and had yet to be taken away?
Are you a human? The answer: Yes you are, no question to debate at all, the real issue here is, are you a person?
Looking at this tomorrow, I think that I will find my point masked, because it is very late for me here, and I do hope that anyone who reads it will see my point for me.