But DNA is not the only thing that determines the way a cell acts and operates. You could not culture a living, breathing human from skin cells. You can and would do so with a fertilized zygote.
I didn’t say it was. It is a poor position to have to add to another’s argument, that they themselves did not make.
“Culture”? That is your word. I used the word “clone”. Which is exactly what scientists hope to be able to do with genetic material found in fresh dinosaur material, in long bones, etc.
That is your prerogative, but laughter at an argument is not argument against that argument.
I didn’t equate them to being the “same thing”. I spake of “potentiality”. Are you suggesting that a “potential” “human person” is not the same as an “actual human person” ? If so, you just surrendered your position to me.
The non-sequitur was your response, in not dealing with what I actually said, but instead you address what you place in the position of what I said.
Because such a distinction is a distinction without basis. There is nothing “potential” about a zygote’s humanity in the same way that there’s nothing “potential” about a toddler’s. They are both developing human organisms. Your talk of skin cells and DNA was countered by the fact that skin cells aren’t humans not because of their DNA but because of what they lack, that being the ability to become a mature human individual.
Yes, the same way I call babies babies and not human persons, because we have English words to refer to individuals in varying stages of human development. The proper term to refer to humans at that stage is zygote. Therefore, I call them zygotes. I am to presume, I suppose, that you never use the terms “baby,” “child,” “teenager,” etc?
Just as many other dehumanized groups were at one point, like PoC before the Thirteenth Amendment and laws following directly after. That doesn’t make the law right. In fact, the law is wrong, and that is why people fight to have it changed.
Perhaps, but one sometimes needs to point out a ridiculous proposition when it is brought up simply to note how ridiculous it is.
Gametes are not potential human persons. Sperm and eggs are combined to make a human person. There is no such thing as a potential human person.
A person means “of son.” Furthermore, it means a being of the Son of God. Hopefully you will agree, but if you don’t, what do you propose is the definition of person?
I’m not looking for a debate on etymology. I just want your definition of the word. What characteristics does a person have? Can’t be hard…Freddy:
A person means “of son.”
Can you show me anywhere where that is accepted as a definition of person? Otherwise that’s just one you have made up to satisfy the requirements of your argument.
Well, there you go. A zygote isn’t a human being. It’s a potential human being.
Given this definition, a zygote is indeed an individual human being.jochoa:
Well, there you go. A zygote isn’t a human being. It’s a potential human being.
Considering Holy Writ
You said a person is a human being (regarded as an individual). Nothing you have said gives any indication of that. I have never seen any reference to a zygote as ‘a human being’ ouside religious discussions. But I have often had it argued that it is a potential human being. With which I completely agree.Freddy:
Given this definition, a zygote is indeed an individual human being.jochoa:
Well, there you go. A zygote isn’t a human being. It’s a potential human being.
“The zygote is a large single cell still floating free inside the uterus . The zygote” then begins to divide each day into 2 cells, then again into 4 cells, 8, 32, 64, 128 cells and so on.” -K12 Week 1 - Embryology
Since the zygote floats free inside the womb, the zygote is a separate individual from the mother.
No change needed. Sure nothing I have said gives any indication of that, yet what you, dictionary definitions, and a scientific site has!
Embryology.med.edu shares:
Therefore the zygote…
Again, there is nothing you have added to the statement you made earlier (and just repeated) that shows that a zygote is a human being. You’ve just said that a person is a human being, regarded as an individual. But you can’t jump from that and say that because it’s individual then it must be a human being.Freddy:
No change needed. Sure nothing I have said gives any indication of that, yet what you, dictionary definitions, and a scientific site has!
You initially shared:
Embryology.med.edu shares:
Therefore the zygote…
Which are all the requirements of being a person as shared by dictionaries:
- is human
- has unique DNA
- and individual (free-floating and separate)
“Person: a human being regarded as an individual”
“Individual: single; separate”
Thanks for the dialogue, and thanks be to God! You helped me dig deeper in my understanding of how a zygote is indeed a person!
The goal is to show that a zygote is a person. We already agree that a zygote is human. Furthermore, I agree that a person isn’t solely an individual, rather a person is an individual human being. Since a zygote meets that criteria, what more do you need to recognize a zygote is a person?
No, it doesn’t. You haven’t come anywhere close to showing that. You’ve said that a person is an individual human being. No problem there. But then you’ve jumped straight to saying that a zygote is an individual human being as well. That’s actually what you need to show.Freddy:
The goal is to show that a zygote is a person. We already agree that a zygote is human. Furthermore, I agree that a person isn’t solely an individual, rather a person is an individual human being. Since a zygote meets that criteria…
So, do you agree with Catholic Supreme Court Justice in Roe V Wade?
An impossibility I am afraid. A lost cause, defeated before it even began.
That is an argument for humanity (nature), not personality.