(June 18, 2014 at 8:39 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: The reality is what being a human boils down to is our genetic history.
I'm going to focus on this one point, because it's the most important one, and the foundation of your argument.
(June 18, 2014 at 8:39 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Furthermore, on the functionalist view there is a problem known as the "tipping point." It asks at what point do we stop becoming human beings when you start taking things away?
I fully admit that there's a problem there, but it is not an insurmountable one.
I note also that you continue to use the term "human beings". We're speaking of matters of law here, where "persons" is the correct term, a legal term of art, and it'd be nice if you stopped equivocating on the two.
To rephrase your question, at what point does one stop being a person with full legal rights if you start stripping things away? Consciousness and the capacity to act as a moral agent. Specifically *which* rights are lost and when are debatable.
That this is difficult to measure in no way invalidates using it as a criteria.
I'll ask again since you seem to have missed it: what makes your opinion, as a matter of law, more compelling than another?
Which other rights do you propose we imbue the zygote with? Surely, if it's a separate being with status to enjoy the rights of the born, we shant stop at right to life.