(June 23, 2014 at 9:48 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Julia, your quotes support my original thesis. A man women or child belonging to the species Homo sapien. Than it shows certain characteristics of how you might distinguish one epistemologically. In my argument, I've stated a genetically complete organism belonging to the species homo sapien is a sufficient condition for human rights. Your bolded definition once again confuse ontology with functionality.Fail: It is easy to win any argument if you are allowed to make up your own definitions.
Kindest regards,
Certainly, a fertilized egg is not a man or a woman. You might be able to assert that it is a child as an immature human being, however as the definitions I presented show, that is not in concordance with commonly used definitions in English.
The definition you are making up equates 'human being' with 'cell with complete human genome.' (Though you have ignored the cases where there is a cell with a complete human genome but you don't consider it a 'human being', e.g. cloned pluripotential cell or one of the two cells in a blastula after the first division.) By your reasoning, one is committing murder by NOT splitting that pair into two twins as each is capable of development into an adult human.
.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat?