Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...

[catfish]

It's human, you dolt. It has human DNA, but that doesn't make it a person. It doesn't even make it an actual human, since not all things that have human DNA are humans; your hair is genetically human, but your hair is not a human.

(bolded by me)

You're a moron, plain and simple. To deny that a human fetus is a human is one of the most stupid things you could do while debating human rights.
Embrace the truth, embrace science, you have no control of this reality.

Actual Human™ is the intellectual property of Dumbasses Everywhere®, free licence is hereby granted to all.
.

[Esquilax]

Alright, I'll do this one more time, so pay attention.

A fetus is human in the same way a tadpole is a frog. Yes, there's a connection between the two, but that doesn't make them equivalent. Yes, a fetus has individual DNA, but that doesn't matter. Yes, a fetus is an individual life form, but so is a tapeworm.

Is a fetus a human in the way you're trying to (dishonestly) make the claim? No. A fetus is not a human like I am a human, and trying to claim that it is would be foolish. More than that, a fetus does not have the characteristics of a person that make the killing of a person morally wrong, either; no propensity for suffering, no sensory apparatus through which it can experience the world, no brain, no mind, no memories or experiences through which a personality can be built up. A fetus is a person in the same way a statue is a person; there may be similarities, but they're only physical, and there are worlds of differences.

What you're trying to do, catfish, is draw a connection to make is seem like we're advocating the murder of living, fully cognizant human beings, and that's simply not true. Hopefully I've made the actual position a little clearer since you seem to have some difficulty understanding basic logical rationales. Now that it's all there in plain black and white, you can continue pathetically appealing to emotion and arrogantly calling everyone else fools.

It does such wonderful things for your argument, after all.

[catfish]

You keep denying it, but it won't change reality.
You keep trying to change the biologic classification of a species and assign the legal definition of "person" to it.
Admit what a fetus is and then we can discuss it's characteristics.

Just say it dude, "a human fetus is an individual human lifeform"...

[Esquilax]

Oh catfish, if only you would stop trying to cram additional emotional baggage into the term I'd have no trouble admitting it. In fact, I have done so numerous times, I've just been careful to qualify my thoughts on the matter because, unlike you who just seems to want to score points by getting people to agree with inaccurate definitions when you've already poisoned the well, I actually care that my arguments are cogent and lack the capacity for misrepresentation.

You, on the other hand, just want me to go "Yeah, a fetus is an individual human life" so you can point your finger and crow that I want to kill babies. I'd rather not be forced into that position by dishonest argumentation, so I thought I'd employ this rather ingenuous thing that intelligent people use called "clarity."

[NoraBrimstone]

Stem cells. Are they people?

[catfish]

Oh catfish, if only you would stop trying to cram additional emotional baggage into the term I'd have no trouble admitting it. In fact, I have done so numerous times, I've just been careful to qualify my thoughts on the matter because, unlike you who just seems to want to score points by getting people to agree with inaccurate definitions when you've already poisoned the well, I actually care that my arguments are cogent and lack the capacity for misrepresentation.

You, on the other hand, just want me to go "Yeah, a fetus is an individual human life" so you can point your finger and crow that I want to kill babies. I'd rather not be forced into that position by dishonest argumentation, so I thought I'd employ this rather ingenuous thing that intelligent people use called "clarity."

So then, do you agree that a zygot/embryo is an individual human lifeform that starts at conception? IOW, is conception the start of life or not? (you claimed "no" earlier)

---

Stem cells. Are they people?

It figures you would try assigning the legal definition of a person to "cells". Think deeper next time...

[Esquilax]

So then, do you agree that a zygot/embryo is an individual human lifeform that starts at conception? IOW, is conception the start of life or not? (you claimed "no" earlier)

It depends on how you're defining it, really. The embryo would be cellular life, but that doesn't tell us anything useful, because the sperm and the egg that originally conceived it were that too.

Even if we restrict ourselves to human life, we still have two definitions that work. The body starts being alive at a certain point, before the actual person that will inhabit it begins to exist, really. But even that body is still growing into its human characteristics, having more in common with fish than humans at certain stages, like Kichi pointed out earlier.

So... no, I'd say that human life doesn't begin at conception, even if life itself does by certain metrics. It's the kind of topic that really does need specificity.

[catfish]

So then, do you agree that a zygot/embryo is an individual human lifeform that starts at conception? IOW, is conception the start of life or not? (you claimed "no" earlier)

It depends on how you're defining it, really. The embryo would be cellular life, but that doesn't tell us anything useful, because the sperm and the egg that originally conceived it were that too.

I don't know if you're intentionally doing this or what... At conception, the sperm and egg combine to create a new human lifeform. Basic biology, I'm not "defining" it, science is. It is not equivelant to a hair, a sperm, an egg or a fucking fish. It's human and has it's own unique human DNA.

Even if we restrict ourselves to human life, we still have two definitions that work. The body starts being alive at a certain point, before the actual person that will inhabit it begins to exist, really. But even that body is still growing into its human characteristics, having more in common with fish than humans at certain stages, like Kichi pointed out earlier.

Again, you're assigning adjectives to something which you use to deny what you wrote below. You're concerned with appearances to establish species classification. The "body" starts as a single cell and is "alive" at conception. This is basic biology man, embrace it.

So... no, I'd say that human life doesn't begin at conception, even if life itself does by certain metrics. It's the kind of topic that really does need specificity.

And this is what is funny. You say this and think you can be right?
If those "certain metrics" say that life itself starts, WHAT FUCKING SPECIES IS IT?!?!?!

[Silver]

WHAT FUCKING SPECIES IS IT?!?!?!

No one seems to be denying that the fetus in question is of the human species. You, however, do seem to be ignoring the fact that the fetus is not an individual person. Due to the fact that the fetus is a veritable parasite, feeding off its host (mother) to survive, it cannot be identified as having personhood.

[NoraBrimstone]

Stem cells. Are they people?

It figures you would try assigning the legal definition of a person to "cells". Think deeper next time... :-/

Shit. The list of things you don't understand just gets longer and longer. *Adds stem cells to list*

And aren't aren't you the one who's been arguing that a bunch of "cells" is a person for the last few days? Isn't that your entire point in this thread?

To quote you:
"WHAT SPECIES IS IT?"