(July 28, 2013 at 1:26 pm)Rahul Wrote:(July 28, 2013 at 9:35 am)Slave Wrote: They are both members of the species homo sapiens.
DNA analysis would say that. But I wouldn't. Having human DNA doesn't make a thing human. (1)
(July 28, 2013 at 9:35 am)Slave Wrote: The term 'person' carries with it connotations of something more than just human. A person has personality. Feelings, thoughts, memories. A dead body is without personage. A zygote and a fetus are not dead bodies.
A zygote doesn't have a personality. A fetus doesn't have a personality. You can no more kill a zygote than you can kill a corpse. It's already not alive. (2)
(July 28, 2013 at 9:35 am)Slave Wrote: View it this way. You have person A on life support. Their higher brain function is absent from birth. However, there is a high probability that this person could have cognitive function in the future. Would you feel justified in killing this person because they are not a 'person' now, even though potential is there?
I would feel no moral guilt over ending it. None. I don't play the lottery. The odds are too great against you. That's just a failed, could have been, human. Living corpse.(3)
(July 28, 2013 at 9:35 am)Slave Wrote: A growing fetus is a person.
No it's not. It's a potential person. Up to 40% of fertilized eggs auto-abort biologically. Most without the woman even knowing anything happened. Manually aborting is the same. It's not a human yet. (4)
1. DNA and science would say that a zygote+ is human. Your objection is anecdotal.
2. A zygote + is very much alive. The brain dead person is technically alive. Personality is not essential for life.
3. That's a shocking statement
4. It (zygote +) is very human. Precisely human, and alive.
It's very interesting that you are getting very emotional here when trying to make a point that we shouldn't treat this subject emotionally.
Would you expand on point 3? Slave said that there was a high probability that this human was going to be cognisant in the future. You seem to have assumed the opposite.