@Eris
Congrats, you just agreed with me that "person" is not the same as "human". As you just discovered yourself, "human" is a subclass of "person".

@alyx No, I disagree with you.

@Eris
Saying "human object is part of person" excludes the other way around being possible. Which makes it impossible for person = human.

@alyx
>Saying "human object is part of person" excludes the other way around being possible.
No it doesn't. My hair is a human. It is a person. That person is me.

@Eris
You literally started with "person is a DISCRETE human being" and ended up with "hair is person" JUST so you don't admit you could be wrong about something.

@alyx I'm not wrong and gaslighting won't convince me I am.

@Eris
You gaslight yourself in changing your own definition of "person".

@alyx How has my definition changed?
You are pre-emptively saying "your argument is ridiculous" without saying how and assuming i will just agree. Very silly way to behave.

@Eris
You've started our discussion by stating that distinct human beings is what constitutes a person.
Now you're stating that body parts of a human (as opposed to a full distinct human being) is what constitutes a person.
You're contradicting yourself.
Not to mention that the first thing people will think about when hearing "person" is a distinct individual functioning mind. It's why we don't really call a skeleton or a putrefying body a person anymore. And last I checked, your foot doesn't have a mind of it's own.

@alyx

Is a slice of cake cake?

@Eris
A slice of cake is a slice of cake. It is not a distinct individual cake. A slice of cake does not share all properties of the full cake. Yes, it does share some properties, but not all of them.

@alyx

>A slice of cake is a slice of cake. It is not a distinct individual cake.
I didn't ask if it was a distinct individual cake. I asked if it is cake.
If it is cake (it is) then it is necessarily part of some distinct individual cake.

@Eris @alyx assume the slice of cake has a cherry. If you take that cherry, is thr cherry itself a cake?

@critical @Eris
I would advise against trying to argue with him. He's beyond hope. I stopped giving it a serious go a good couple of posts ago.

@alyx @critical Go back to giving it a serious go and see how it goes.

@Eris @critical
With you? I'd rather have a discussion with your foot at this point.

@alyx @critical Why are you still here then

@alyx @critical Also, why are you suddenly so aggressive?

@Eris @critical
Both of you basically called me a murderer, and I'm the aggressive one.

@alyx >Both of you basically called me a murderer, and I’m the aggressive one.

So you’ve had an abortion?

@Eris @critical

@NEETzsche @critical @Eris
Is fapping and cumming in a tissue the same as an abortion? Checking your definitions on everything now... who knows what the hell people will come up with next.

@alyx @NEETzsche @critical
>Is fapping and cumming in a tissue the same as an abortion?
No, of course not.

@alyx @NEETzsche @critical

A sperm cell is human, but which human is it? If you kill the sperm cell, does that human die?
A fetus is human, but which human is it? If you kill the fetus, does that human die?

@Eris @NEETzsche @alyx @critical
Life begins at conception (the Church's teaching) is the most logically coherent. You either believe that or you are basically ok with infanticide. No one can ever explain exactly when life begins, because any other answer like "At birth" or "when a heartbeat is detected" is so variable it becomes absurd.

@Samhydeigger @critical @NEETzsche @Eris
The only reason that works for Christians is because they add in the concept of the soul at the same time. It's not just the "life" part that is important for them, it's that the life has a soul that is critical. Of course this brings in a lot more theological problems that Christians are usually unaware of, like how do twins' souls work, or do the countless miscarried pregnancies also have souls?
And not to mention that this goes out the window when you're talking with either a non-believer, or someone who's religion is far too different than mainstream Christianity.

@alyx @critical @NEETzsche @Eris Ok from a scientific point of view only, when does life begin? I need the exact moment btw.

@Samhydeigger @critical @NEETzsche @Eris
Life begins with each and every cell division.

@alyx @Samhydeigger @critical @NEETzsche

Which life, specifically?

@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger
That's something I need to ask you. Or rather Samhydeigger I guess, but you can answer too.

@alyx @Eris @critical @NEETzsche A human life begins at conception. When does it begin to you?

@Samhydeigger @critical @NEETzsche @Eris
What do you mean by "a human life"? Do you mean the life of something with human DNA? The life of a person that is human? Or something else.

@alyx @Samhydeigger @critical @NEETzsche @Eris you didn't ask me but I'll answer.

A human life is one that has genetic code working autonomously. Meaning that there is DNA, as imperfect as it may be, that is 100% home sapien, functioning on it's own. So this includes the moment an egg is fertilized, identical twins, people who are brain dead, really retarded and downy humanoid creatures, theoretical freezing, etc.

It wouldn't cover some forms of siamese twins as 2 separated humans, like the ones that completely share a system and contain identical DNA that work in tandem. Obviously it wouldn't cover a dead person, or a theoretical hybrid or human DNA inserted in like mice to make ears or whatever.

It's really a simple answer if you take away "human" and add another living thing like "cat" or "horse". Would you consider a retarded horse a horse? Would you consider a fetal horse a horse? Does it become a cat when it's a fetus? What if there's 2? Etc.

@Tepid_Tapir @alyx @Eris @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger so a fetus is a human being and a person, just like an adult. So aborting it would be murder. If it wanted to be dead it would kill itself, just like an adult would, right?

@critical @NEETzsche @Eris @Samhydeigger @Tepid_Tapir
In my view there is a period of time when a fetus can be called human and yet not a person.

@alyx @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger @Tepid_Tapir

>In my view there is a period of time when a fetus can be called human and yet not a person.
Are you going to make any effort at all to make that view coherent to anyone other than yourself?
That's what this thread is, remember?

@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger @Tepid_Tapir
I'll give you a hint, and let you think it out yourself: what changes between a human being 100% healthy, alive, whatever, and the very same human being brain dead.

@alyx @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger @Tepid_Tapir Your only goal for this thread was to prove that you can clearly explicate a coherent point.
It was the lowest bar possible and you couldn't even pass it.

@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger @Tepid_Tapir
Please don't state what my goals were for me. You're not a mind reader. You tried it a few times already, and failed miserably each and every time.