I'm not a philosopher.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should a woman's bodily autonomy be disregarded when it comes to pregnancy?
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
I'm not a philosopher.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
So we can as easily dismiss your claim of person including zygote?
I mean, you made the claim that you consider a zygote a person.
Yet you cannot even tell us how you define "person" that would include zygote.
There is no right or wrong here.
I am merely curious how it is you define person to include zygote.
Heather asked me what my opinion was on that and I answered. I just keep it simple and define a human as a person. I'm not all that knowledgeable about how a "person" is defined in philosophy and varying philosophies have varying ways of defining it, anyway.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I am not asking you to present a philosophy that you agree with.
I am asking how you define person to include a zygote.
Your avoidance is most annoying.
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm on here, talking to my mom and the dog is carrying on at the same time. Calm down.
Anyway, the zygote is a person because it is a human being. It doesn't "become" a human being. It is a human being from the moment of conception. It is simply at its earliest stage of development. Simply because it cannot perform certain functions is not a good standard to judge by because neither can newborns, young children or mentally or physically impaired people.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Why is conception the magic moment?
BTW:
human being
(Homo sapiens), a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members.
Source
(Homo sapiens), a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members.
Source
Because that's the moment when a new individual human comes into existence.
You're right. We're perfectly capable of considering it a human being before its conception, but that only screams all the louder about its position as "human."
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Ok.
That makes sense.
Before its conception?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Well, it is a living HUMAN sperm that joins with a living HUMAN ovum.
However, as was pointed out, conception is as close to that particular human persons beginning as we needs get.
Nah, it's just a HUMAN.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Oh, they are living.
Without the living part there would be no conception.
Sperm and eggs aren't humans, by themselves. They're the ingredients to make a human. It's only when they combine that it becomes a human being. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're saying.
Yes. We have the capacity to imagine.
The ingredients to make a human are many more.
In Canada this isn't a problem. It is written into our constitution that no right outweighs another.
dust1n
Zindīq
A single cell would be considered a human?
If that cell is a zygote, yes. It's human, isn't it? It's just a human at the earliest stage of development.
It's no less a human than the imagining of a son or daughter before they are conceived.
