You don’t see a flaw in the fact that a block of marble will never turn itself into a statue but a fertilized egg will continue to grow without the mother even being aware of its existence?
This analogy is also flawed. Each drop of water is a separate entity and those entities find each other and group together. A fertilized egg is one entity which grows on its own.
I doubt you’ll find any scientific classification of a human being (homo sapiens) as a “person”. That is not the realm of science, and is left to philosophy and law.
But it’s bleedin’ obvious that science agrees that as the late stage human blastocyst begins the gastrulation process it does become a “distinct individual”. A unigue human being in the earliest stages of human existence as a member of humanity.
In medicine, we agree that we ultimately have a unique human being by the time gastrulation commences (day 15 post-conception) because the human epiblast (inner cell mass of the blastocyst) differentiates into the 3 primary germ cell layers that make up the embryo and the primitive streak is visible.
You’re conflating human with human being. The former is an adjective and the latter a noun. I’ve been making that distinction all along. And equating human being with person. And I don’t consider a blastocyst to be a person.
This!
I don’t think there’d be as great a problem for woman to prevent the pregnancy happening a day after coitus than by ending it a few weeks later. But you need to ask a woman about that for an individual answer.Freddy:
Having an abortion and taking a vitiman pill.
It’s an analogy, Emma. They’re not meant to correlate exactly. When Jaques says…Freddy:
You don’t see a flaw…
The term person is I think generally used to incorporate more than “human being“. Eg. Here is one definition but I tend to side with Mama that maybe “person” is a bit philosophical. Human being status is sufficient IMH to conclude killing is wrong.
But Fred, when the analogy fails in what It is intended to explicate - in the key issue, well, that’s just a FAIL.
Something that gradually changes from one form to another is viewed differently throughout that process. That originally it has less value than when it is complete. That it becomes more valuable as the process continues.Freddy:
But Fred, when the analogy fails in what It is intended to explicate - in the key issue, well, that’s just a FAIL.
Really? “Completeness” is a measure of how you feel human life should be valued.
In the context of abortion, yes. A blastocyst is not the same as a newly born baby. And is treated differently. Why is this this so difficult to understand?Freddy:
Really? “Completeness” is a measure of how you feel human life should be valued.
Oh, I understand how you feel. What is lacking is a rational argument that supports how you feel.
This is an incoherent argument, as it denies life as a continuum. As if a tree appears magically out of nowhere.Rau:
Something that gradually changes from one form to another is viewed differently throughout that process. That originally it has less value than when it is complete. That it becomes more valuable as the process continues.Freddy:
But Fred, when the analogy fails in what It is intended to explicate - in the key issue, well, that’s just a FAIL.
Because it doesn’t hold up to the simple question: is the blastocyst “human life” or not? In philosophical terms, does it have the form ‘human’? (Not the physical accidents, mind you – the form. Is it human life?)
)Yet you would have a problem with somebody else ending the pregnancy agsinst her will, but not giving her garlic against her will. Why is that?
A blastocyst is a human organism. A tumor isn’t.
Poor analogy. You might better assert “is an arm a human life or not?” At least that example would illuminate what you’re trying to do here: conflate a part with the whole. A tumor is part of a body, just as an arm is a part of a body. The whole is human. An embryo – or any stage of human development – is a whole, and as such, is human.
No. Just the opposite.Freddy:
This is an incoherent argument, as it denies life as a continuum.Rau:
Something that gradually changes from one form to another is viewed differently throughout that process. That originally it has less value than when it is complete. That it becomes more valuable as the process continues.Freddy:
But Fred, when the analogy fails in what It is intended to explicate - in the key issue, well, that’s just a FAIL.
I’ve said time and time again that no-one would consider terminating a pregnancy a day before giving birth. So why ask such a question? I’m not sure you have been following the discussion.Freddy:
Oh, I understand how you feel. What is lacking is a rational argument that supports how you feel.
Please provide the principles that undergird your position. So far we have none; only your lack of feeling as sufficient permit to kill the unborn.
To wit:
If I cannot feel for the child then I may kill it.
If the child does not resemble me or a newly born then I may kill it (because I cannot feel for that child).
These persons also do not look like newly born babies. Which ones are OK with you to kill?
Again, that has been discussed and agreed. Are you reading the thread or just jumping in at random posts?Freddy:
Because it doesn’t hold up to the simple question: is the blastocyst “human life” or not? In philosophical terms, does it have the form ‘human’? (Not the physical accidents, mind you – the form. Is it human life?)
If you can’t differentiate between pregnancy and a spagetti bolognaise then I’m not sure our discussion will go anywhere from this point onwards.Freddy:
Yet you would have a problem with somebody else ending the pregnancy agsinst her will, but not giving her garlic against her will. Why is that?