I apologize for being late to this conversation.
I have read most of the thread, but I haven't seen Arthur123's full definition of what constitutes personhood.
Correct me if I misstate, but it appears he considers having a complete human genome makes one a human being.
Others have opined that a human genome is necessary but not sufficient. I am of this mind. There are substantial further requirements before a fertilized egg can be considered susceptible to murder.
But even given the unreasonably broad definition (a genetically complete human cell which can potentially become and adult human), how does Arthur123 answer the challenge that he is murdering millions of humans daily? By that definition, every cell in his body capable of being cloned is a potential human every bit as capable of becoming an adult human with proper care as a fertilized egg. Therefore each should be protected by the full weight of moral righteousness enforced by law.
I wish to preempt an expected objection that only a cell with a unique genome can be considered a human being worthy of protection by limiting the murders in which he indulges daily to only those cloneable cells of his which have undergone some trascription errors or mutations which serve to make them unique.
I have read most of the thread, but I haven't seen Arthur123's full definition of what constitutes personhood.
Correct me if I misstate, but it appears he considers having a complete human genome makes one a human being.
Others have opined that a human genome is necessary but not sufficient. I am of this mind. There are substantial further requirements before a fertilized egg can be considered susceptible to murder.
But even given the unreasonably broad definition (a genetically complete human cell which can potentially become and adult human), how does Arthur123 answer the challenge that he is murdering millions of humans daily? By that definition, every cell in his body capable of being cloned is a potential human every bit as capable of becoming an adult human with proper care as a fertilized egg. Therefore each should be protected by the full weight of moral righteousness enforced by law.
I wish to preempt an expected objection that only a cell with a unique genome can be considered a human being worthy of protection by limiting the murders in which he indulges daily to only those cloneable cells of his which have undergone some trascription errors or mutations which serve to make them unique.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? 
