Alyx Hinata 🇹🇩🚫💀 @alyx@gameliberty.club

@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.

@Tepid_Tapir @critical @NEETzsche @Eris @Samhydeigger
Here's why your definition is faulty: someone that died very recently still has most of the cells in his body alive. There is more "human life" in them than a freshly fertilized embryo. And excluding Siamese twins is just... wow... I don't even know what to say to that. I'm utterly confused tbh. The more I read that sentence, the less I understand what you mean to say.

This is why I fall back to personhood. The person element goes away when they die and Siamese twins can still be 2 distinct persons.

Another thing that confuses me: "one that has genetic code working autonomously". A fetus is anything but autonomous. For most of the 9 months, it simply cannot be autonomous if it ends up out of the womb through some form of premature birth. Even if you're talking just about DNA strands replicating by themselves, they're still not autonomous, as they require material from the body/fetus to do so, so it still requires the body/fetus to be autonomous itself. I can only assume you meant something different by "autonomous".

>Would you consider a retarded horse a horse?
Yes. A retarded human is a human. Even a brain dead human is a human, but I don't think I'd call them a person anymore.

@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger
>Just talk to me like a real person.
Am I supposed to use my definition of "person" here, or yours?

A foot is a person, a cherry is a tree, the Socratic method is bad. I've learned so much today.

@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger
How is it a lie, when I don't understand your definitions of "human" and "person"? Again, I started this very discussion making sure we had the same definitions for these words, and it's been clear from the beginning that we don't.

@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger
Believe what you want.

@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger
You've already proved that we have very different understanding of some very basic words.

@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger
It's for understanding things in general. In a honest discussion people seek to understand each other.

@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger
To establish that we have the same definition of words, so that we can proceed with a discussion while avoiding misunderstandings that can occur because of different definitions of words.

@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger
>not asking Socratic questions
And that's why you're bad at this.

@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.

@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger
Depends on which life you're talking about. We might have a ground on which to discuss something, or we might not.

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

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

@NEETzsche @critical @Eris
Here's the fun part: how do you know I don't consider some or all abortion to be killing/murder? I didn't even get near the topic itself. You'll assumed things of me and called me a murderer.

@critical @Eris
I think I'm gonna. I was looking to see if there's any other interesting post I'm interested in replying to, but there's not really. The closest is one where he proves he doesn't even know how Christians think on the topic and why they say they value life so much (hint: it's because they believe in souls granted to each of us by god, and as god is sacred, then the soul must be sacred, and if the soul is sacred, than the human life that was given a soul is sacred).

@critical @Eris
Don't... just don't... run while you still can.

@NEETzsche @critical @Eris
A dead body can be a human being. Doesn't solve things. Now we have to start saying "an alive human being, that has a distinct personality from another human body that shares the same DNA, and looks the same, and that could also be a clone".

@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.

@NEETzsche @critical @Eris
Is a dead body a human?
Yes, saying "a human" is indeed better. I still prefer "person". In my view, "a human" simply takes "person" and makes a subcategory for "person with human DNA".
Also, I don't feel like "a human" inherently evokes humanity's ability to reason or their individuality, like "person" does. We say things like "a human body" all the time, but "a human body" is not necessarily alive, which is a key factor in an abortion discussion. Meanwhile, we don't usually say that a dead human body is a person, we say that they were (past tense) a person. Note that being alive is one of the key factors of what being a person is.