Goddamn. 8 replies since I started this.
Your arguments haven't always rested on particular descriptors you have included in a couple of your statements.
Umm guys, why are we starting to refer to a fertilized egg as a child?
Also, please, when you use the word "kill" use it when you are referring to life.
(in direct reference to "killing" a fetus).
The abortion argument is different; in the beginning stages of pregnancy, it is inaccurate to refer to the fertilized egg "as a child," as though it had already been born or significantly developed.
Now, this last quote is what I called you out on and repeated to "stop stating this as fact" (with variations of underline, bold, and larger fonts). Here's why.
(Oh really quickly, let's not forget these PMs):
While we're on this topic: sometimes I read your arguments, and they are so bombarded with subjective moral judgements that it's frustrating and difficult to approach the content of the argument. For example, constantly referring to abortion (at any stage) as "murder," and a fertilized egg (at any stage) as a "child."
As I've said, I've never referred to abortion as "murder." Aside from that, you're stating that it is an illogical, subject judgment that "a fertilized egg is a child."
Also from a PM:
A fertilized egg and a grown human are not the same thing
This was, IIRC, the first time you've included the modifier "grown" in the argument. Clearly, a "human being" and "grown human being" are very different in their precision. "Grown human" is a much smaller subset of "human". Obviously this statement is true.
However, in my acknowledgement that this statement is true, you are attempting to lure me into the notion that a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus is not a human being. This is a logical fallacy in the following form:
1.) A, B, and C
2.) B contains C
3.) C does not contain A
4.) Therefore, B does not contain A
where A is fertilized egg/embryo/fetus, B is human, and C is grown human (or the concepts of these, respectively). This is a non sequitur argument.
Now, I'll get to why I told you to stop treating that as fact. You have told me:
Referring to something as though it were something else, is inaccurate.
A = B is incorrect if A =/= B. Right?
In this case, I think we both agree that
A is a fetus, embryo, fertilized egg, whatever you'd like to call it; and
B is a human being. Right?
Well, if not, let me first address the problems with B being a "grown" human being or "born" human being. These arguments stem from the fact that we typically have a problem with taking the life of a human being.
If we define and separate human beings by their stage of development, we end up being required to raise some fairly interesting questions. Now, the only thing that separates an embryo, fetus, or fertilized egg from a "born" human being is a stage of development. It posesses each of the six characteristics of
life:
1.) Organization: clearly, cels within a fertilized egg are organized; at the very beginning of the process, only parts of cells are organized. However, within a few weeks, organs begin to form. However, we do not consider a single-celled organism to be nonlife because it does not have organs. Clearly, an embryo/fetus/fertilized egg (EFFE from here on out, because I'm tired of typing it) is not excluded from life in this characteristic.
2.) Metabolism: clearly, living cells need to process energy. An EFFE may not do this on its own like we "developed" humans do, but its cells do, again on a micro level. Now, the mother's body is required to provide basic sustenance for the cells to break down into functional packages like ATP that cells can use to process energy (if I'm recalling biology correctly). However, many parasites are also considered life that have similar needs - not just bacterial in this case.
3.) Growth: if you dispute this... there's no arguing with you.
4.) Stimulus response: I'm certain that I've seen studies about EFFEs having stimulus response capability. I cannot speak to this at length or in great detail. However, I would very much suggest that this also can be evaluated on the cell level rather than the organism level.
5 and 6.) Adaptation and Reproduction: I chose to group these two together because I see them as the two primary areas in which we may disagree, and it's for the same reason. An EFFE is not required to adapt until it is born, and is unable to reproduce until it is born.
Let's take a look at those two situations.
Children, up until puberty, and females after menopause are unable to reproduce. Do we exclude them from being tallied "living"? Hardly. So that is not a qualifier on a per-organism basis. Developmental stages are entirely and inextricably a part of the developmental process. However, a heart in and of itself is not part of the developmental process and can never reproduce. A heart's cells will die if they are not provided with sustenance from other parts of the body. A heart, even though it's organic, is, in and of itself, nonlife.
Comatose people are unable to physically adapt to their environment. In fact, they generally lose whatever adaptation they have gained while being comatose if they are so for long periods of time. Do we consider them to be not "living"? Hardly; in fact, we go to great lengths to keep them alive. Again, this is not a qualifier on a per-organism basis, and is rather a characteristic of the species.
Clearly, you have a distinct definition of what it means to "be human" than what I do. So, in the spirit of fostering
logical debate about this, instead of mudslinging and saying things are "sad" and motivated by "hatred, fear, and passion" -- I'll provide you with my definition of what it is to "be human."
A human is an organism that:
1.) fits the definition of life at any stage of development of the human (biological) developmental process; and
2.) contains DNA consistent with other humans (insofar as genetics allows for variation).
It appears that
Wikipedia agrees with me that human development begins at the point of conception, in terms of biological development; and although it notes that "it is considered by many to be the beginning of a person's life," it does not say that it is considered to be the beginning of life itself.
Let me ask you a question. You tend to look at life through the Descartes perspective, right?
Cogito ergo sum?
Do you have any memory of your first year or two following your birth?
Did you exist then, since you have no memory of it? You may have been sentient, but we have no proof of it. Were you alive? Or is sentience not a valid yardstick for whether someone is alive or human? I think it's not.
We have different premises for what life is, or what it is to be human. So we can both be logical, with one of us saying that an EFFE is human and the other saying otherwise. The premises are different; if you want to argue them, then let's do it. But don't just dismiss me as being illogical, or passion-based. You have not addressed the real crux of the matter; the definition of life or of being human is what's under debate. That's what I've tried to tell you and what Arta's tried to tell you. Your blind fervor and determination to be correct has kept you from this.
