You have no idea what you are talking about. You don’t understand the law of identity. You don’t understand a single point Ive made. It is beyond you. You read something and then you twist the context to fit your position. Fine - but you are wrong. Black children possess the form of person hood. You’re arguing since it is smaller, or has a different color then it should be different according to me - That’s complete idiocy. It’s not JUST properties, its not JUST characteristics - it is the culmination these things that identify it in it’s totality. A red, car, a blue car, a green car ARE ALL CARS - they possess the necessary characteristics, and properties IN TOTALITY that identify it as a CAR, to further identify it would be that it was, a blue CAR, or a green CAR…because it possesses the characteristics, and properties, as a WHOLE that defines it as a car. A small car with a broken headlight and a door missing is still a car because it still possess the characteristics in totality of what can be identified as a car. An acorn does not. A cell does not. Something at a different stage cannot be identified in totality as what it is at another stage or what it has the potential to become. The only way your argument makes sense is if we really don’t have a way of knowing what anything is - and this is axiomatically untrue. You would argue that since a pen, and a pencil are both part of the group known as writing instruments - that a pen and a pencil are the same thing. That isn’t true. They are both writing instruments - but a pen is a pen, and a pencil is a pencil. They have their own unique and particular identity in totality. A blastocyst is of course human…but it is not a person. It is a blastocyst. There are inseparable characteristics of form, and properties that identify a thing.
Things you left out in your argument of error…
Axiom of Identity
Everything that exists has a SPECIFIC nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. “This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable.” “This book is white, and has 312 pages.” “This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it.” In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity;* the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important.* Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.
When you sit down to describe a person - or draw a person - unless you’re insane, daft, or blind you will invariably come across the same unique characteristics, and properties that identify it as such. Arms, organs, legs, heart, skin, eyes…etc…etc…not just specifics of each - but in totality.
Now describe a cell in this way, and give it to someone who doesn’t know what you are describing. Let me know how far you get. Why isn’t a caterpillar a butterfly or vise versa? You have no argument because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Also the twinning argument completely destroys the argument that “people” begin at conception in and of itself.** Monozygotic twins split into two zygotes at some time early in the pregnancy.** There was one cell after the process of conception then it becomes another sometime later. This new (person) as you would incorrectly call it came about DURING PREGNANCY - complete evidence that you once again have no idea what you are talking about. I’m satisfied, and I’m done. It’s clear that you will never get it because your religious mind won’t let you understand the facts because it destroys your world view. You have succumbed to cognitive dissonance - a condition that runs rampant on this board and in the world.
