Unless you come up with a new argument on this, I will be bowing out of this part of the discussion, as I try to remember to do when I start repeating myself.
I am getting tired of this, too. The problem is the confusion between the different uses of the word “human”. Is it a “
noun” or an “
adjective”? As adjectives, we can speak of human chromosomes, human genes, human DNA, human cell, human cells (in plural)), human tissue, human organ, human collection of cells (blastocyst), embryo, fetus and finally - at birth, a new human infant, or being. That is the point when the symbiotic/parasitic dependence on the mother’s bodily resources cease.
Since you keep on confusing / conflating all that, and call all of them human beings, it is useless to continue. We keep on talking past each other.
By the way, there is no such thing as a
precise “human” DNA. There can be discrepancies, which might lead to mutations.
All that is required is that the person in such a state be cared for with basic care: food, water, minimal medical care such as antibiotics for a minor infection (and even the last is not required under circumstances where that would be difficult to manage). If this uses up valuable resources, that society is probably in a lot more trouble than can be dealt with here.
Today, we have a shortage of hospital beds. And, yes, we are in ****load of trouble.
Does it bother you that another person has made the decision that life is sacred from conception ti natural death?
Why should it bother me? Everyone is entitled to have an opinion.
Also, if you could give us a working definition of being kept artificially alive it would be helpful please and thank you.
Terri Schiavo was an example.
