(June 18, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Cthulhu, I have defined a human being as someone belonging to the species homo-sapien.
How is species "homo-sapien [sic]" defined in biology?
(June 18, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: I believe this to be the default view and indeed, the only coherant definition.
What you believe is wholly irrelevant. What can you demonstrate? You're seeking to convince others of your view, yes?
(June 18, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Indeed, the zygote to the fetus, fetus to the child, child to adult. Are all just stages of their development. Since the fetus is informationally complete in its human informationit can be said it is a human being.
I'll let someone more knowledgeable than myself disabuse you of the notion that you're using "information" in a remotely correct context. Esquilax? You're up.
(June 18, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Or similarly, as Alexander Pruss PhD in both mathematics and philosophy who holds a professorship at Baylor University states, if something exists and never ceases to exist than it can be said that thing is still alive.
Argument from authority. What's his background in biology? Yep, when I want opinions on matters of biology (the nature of life), I'll ask a mathematician or philosopher.
(June 18, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: I am a fetus, I was a fetus just as I was a child and to say a fetus is any less human than a child is completely arbitrary.
It's entirely arbitrary to claim that a unicellular zygote is person under law.
I prefer a qualitative approach. Has it the capacity for moral agency? Has it consciousness? The ability to experience qualia? Is it viable? Is it a threat to the host's existence?
What makes your criteria any more valid than mine?