💀
@Eris
Saying "human object is part of person" excludes the other way around being possible. Which makes it impossible for person = human.
>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.
@Eris
You gaslight yourself in changing your own definition of "person".
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.
@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.
>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.
@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.
>Is fapping and cumming in a tissue the same as an abortion?
No, of course not.
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?
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.
@Samhydeigger @critical @NEETzsche @Eris
Life begins with each and every cell division.
@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
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.
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 @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.
>There is more "human life" in them than a freshly fertilized embryo.
Okay? Does the quantity matter?
>The more I read that sentence, the less I understand what you mean to say.
Makes perfect sense to me. I would call a set of "siamese twins" one person, not two. It's just that that person's body developed unnaturally.
>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.
So everyone else in this conversation has a shared understanding of human, but YOU have a very particular understanding of "person" as being distinct from that. And for some reason we are all supposed to shift to using your language instead of you accomodating us.
You fundamentally fail to understand what "natural" means. A mutation is unnatural, it is a deviation from a thing's nature.
@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger @Tepid_Tapir
False. A mutation is natural. It might not be a good natural occurrence, but it's still part of how nature works.
@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger @Tepid_Tapir
Mutations ARE in a biological entity's nature.
@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger @Tepid_Tapir
You fail at the most basic biological facts, and you want to argue abortion? Really?!
