I have a personal issue

>If you do not understand that humans have more inherent value
Potential, not "inherent". A disabled man fully dependent on others is a strain to society and should not be born in the first place, while a herding dog has a lot to offer.

So Stephan Hawking has no value? Our minds are more important than any physical labor.

No, they certainly have value. However, they are not children. They will never be of our flesh and blood. They are companions, sure, but to a much lesser degree than any human companion. I live on a farm with working dogs. We treat all minor afflictions they may encounter in their natural life. Once a terminal condition presents itself we euthanize the dog as we can't afford to have a geriatric senior dog that has 3 different prescriptions. Our dogs never receive surgery, or other invasive operations. I've loved all my dogs and I was sad when they had to go. I held my dog in my arms at home when the vet administered the lethal dose and cried, but I would never string an unhealthy dog along to watch it deteriorate on my living room floor day after day.

Cut the sophistry, user. Hawking contributed a whole lot to fields like astrophysics. I meant literal vegetables with no hope for independent existence.

Like comatose patients? People pull the plug on them. I have no problem with this. I'm not sure what your argument is about. Is there some situation where I am forced to choose between a living healthy dog and a comatose human? Set up your hypothetical better. I choose the dog btw. How could I allow that which is nothing more than flesh take president over a sentient being?

I was only answering a post about the supposed "inherent" value of humans (as opposed to dogs), so your accusations should be directed at