“My definitions?” How on earth do you claim to know my definitions? I never said anything that would support the proposition that a sperm constitutes human life.
The parameters you used to define a zygote as a human being, can easily be applied to the spermatazoan and the oocite, to qualify them as such.
Prior to conception, they are both free living independent human entities, which under the lingustics which define a zygote as a human being, also qualify them.
I’ve been a practicing attorney since 1991. I therefore have a passing familirity with the notion that “legal arguements require precise language.” Thanks anyway, though. My language was quite precise. I meant exactly what I said. Every human being is equally human.
Good, then you know better than to use imprecise language in these arguments.
Where do you get the assumption that a “minor change” occurs in one case while a “major change” occurs in another? By what criteria do you choose to distinguish a minor change from a major change?
Consider a car, (sorry, automobile), under construction…
The chassis, (frame), is built, and the body work is attached, as are the wheels and tyres.
There might be no seats or glass, but it looks like a car.
But as yet, there is no engine or transmission fitted.
Consider another. The engine has been fitted, and the gearbox, and all the electrics and control gear, but there is no fuel in the tank.
This second one, now moves to the testing and tuning area, where fuel is added, and the engine is started, and tuned, and the inherent characteristics of the new engine are learnt by the electronic control gear.
Of the three cases, it is surely clear, that there is a significantly different state between the first two cases, whereas between the second two cases, there is only a development of the same state.
The cases I illucidated were of the first kind, those you did, were of the second kind.
Now, that is scientifically clear.
Yes, I know that attorneys have been trained in the misuse of language to score oratorical points, but they should be aware of scientific equivalences.
I am not here for oratorical point scoring, I am chasing scientific truth.
The change in the presence or absence of a system is a major change, the adjustment of an existing system is a minor change.
If the system under discussion is a major system, such as the CNS, then that makes a world of difference.
What kind of change increases a person’s degree of humanity, and what kind of change decreases a person’s degree of humanity?
Do you mean genetic humanity, or do you mean spiritual humanity?
Again, a world of difference.
An ancephalic foetus is fully genetically human, but will never be to any extent at all spiritually human.
Apply your considerations to two kinds of conjoined twins:
Case one: two heads, but only one trunk, two arms and two legs.
A viable organism, comprising in every sense, two persons.
Case two: one bifurcated trunk, with only one head, but with four arms and four legs.
Here again, a viable organism, comprising a single person, with extraneous appendages. which are dispensible.
Any reasonable person will thus equate personhood with the presence of a functional brain, the lack of which implies absolutely, the absense of a person.
Is that clear and reasonable?
