(June 17, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(June 17, 2014 at 5:33 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Beccs, the problem with your definition is it confuses human beings with their functionality instead of their ontology (what that thing actually is.)
Here's YOUR problem. You're defining a zygote as a human being based on it having the same DNA has a fully formed human being.
If you define it thusly, a female's eggs and a male's sperm cells, not to mention the millions of skin cells shed every year, are also human beings.
Ergo, a human being must be more than that which is defined by it's DNA.
There are a number of properties that beings that we assign legal rights have, that a zygote and a non-viable fetus lack. They are not the same thing as a fully formed human, and you asserting by fiat that they *are* ontologically the same is analogous to you pulling a fully-formed answer out of your ass.
Try again.
Thank you.
Basically said everything I was going to respond with.
Dying to live, living to die.