(June 9, 2021 at 5:14 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(June 9, 2021 at 4:41 pm)brewer Wrote: Faulty logic, fails to take into account the developmental process, which I believe you brought up earlier but now seems to have forgotten for the sake of argument.
Organisms are not what "things" are getting developed into. They are the things doing the developing. And development continues throughout the lifespan to senescence and death—at no point does it make sense to say we've arrived. Studying how things developed into humans might be the jurisdiction of evolutionary biology, but studying the way human organisms develop is the jurisdiction of embryology, etc.
Edit: Doing some digging it seems like molar pregnancies are missing the maternal DNA or have some other issues combining the genetic material. If that's the case I don't understand what your objection is. These are all examples of how reproduction goes astray. And there are thousands of developmental and genetic problems that can occur during or after takeoff.
Acardiac twin is an in utero development abnormality creating a twin incompatible with human life. It does not therefore deserve X rights. I suppose you could say a zygote gets x rights until a development abnormality occurs, but what's the point?
The original position was unborn rights from conception, makes no sense when you consider molar pregnancies and other genetic abnormalities without more precise definitions.
Bold: This is my point, you and Neo need better definitions.
You're no longer worth my continued attention.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
