Search results

Eh, I don't think we are there yet, as much as I'd like to be (extraction to an working artificial womb is the ethical alternative to abortion). There's a reason women who don't want to carry use human surrogates, not a machine.

How did they start earlier though? As far as I can tell, it's not genetics that cause cell splitting. It's literal random chance that can't be determined at conception (the rate of identical twins is basically identical world over, as opposed to fraternal, which is different). So are you...

That's not how twins work though. The difference between an embryo that splits into identical twins and one that doesn't is probably nothing, just random chance that splits them. The same if you make clones from a cell line by splitting off cells, then implant them. Unless you believe in...

It's probable that in the next few decades a person will be able to say "biologically speaking, I don't have a mom or dad or any parent." They will have been created by genetically altering an egg cell. They might say that they are a clone of person X, it might be completely new genetic code...

If they've got a brain that goes spark, it's a person. Yes, it's an awful tragedy that people are born with down syndrome, but that doesn't mean they deserve to die.

Um, from this I get a no: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/offspring But fair enough, I guess the word is imprecise (as is typical for English), I couldn't recall it used like that. And honestly, the way Fleiur is using the word, I think they'd agree with me here at least, as they...

Oh, then are kids offspring of their grandparents? Oh, wait, they aren't. No, it means immediate descendants (which they aren't, as there is a clear step in between), or the product of reproductive processes of an animal, plant or human. But since Fleiur decided to specify of 2 parents, they are...

And also, you can clone them. It's quite doable, we just don't. A clone has only 1 parent (for lack of a better term), and has the exact same DNA as them. Your definition of human (the offspring of two humans), thus does not include clones of humans. Hence your definition of human is bad...

Ah, I see. No, I hadn't gotten that vibe. And as always, if you can poke a hole at my definition or offer your own, I'd welcome it.

Sure? But what does your statement have to do with the definition (i.e. why'd you quote this?)

The electrical activity is to determine if it's a human being vs human tissue, not for determining human vs non human. Like if we were concerned about dog abortions for some reason, I'd have the same criteria: brain cells have a close enough DNA to dogs, and brain activity. The only reason I'm...

Ha! Fair enough. I'm not actually that concerned with confusing humans with animals, and am fine with self referential definitions right now, so we can focus on the relevant question. So for a more complete definition: a human is an organism in which 1) its brain cells consistently share more...

Scientifically speaking, yes. We are all animals. A human is a type of animal, just like a square is a type of rectangle. Humans are the only animal that matters morally, but scientifically, yes, we are just a species of animal. I agree a clone of a human is a human. But a clone of a human is...

Okay, but you didn't answer any of my objections. Zeroeth, a human is an animal. First, I never said anything about crossbreeding anyone. You are confusing what I'm saying. When I say: What I'm saying that by your bad definition of human, a clone of a human isn't a human. Because a clone...

I've never claimed this. This doesn't respond to any of my points. Human tissue does not a human being make. I claimed, quite clearly, that a fetus before brain activity is no different than an appendix in the woman. That's still human tissue, just not human tissue that matters morally. Ah...

No, mental trauma isn't a good enough reason. Someone can make up 'mental trauma' for anything, and thus slot that in under mother's health. The line is simple to draw: if the fetus isn't a separate human yet (i.e. no electrical activity in the brain), you can do whatever with it, it's the...

No, the first two are very dubious and aren't generally accepted exceptions. I'd say no, personally. It's still a life. The usual exceptions are threat to the mother's life, rape, or incest (because that's just an easy to demonstrate rape 99 times out of 100).

That's the thing. I don't see a hole with brain activity, I do with everything else. And the rest of your post I agree with, with the allowance that only abortion post-brain activity would be killing, before it's more an amputation as it's part of the mother. But in general, looking at...

But then when does an IVF treatment become a baby? By your logic, it would be at implantation, not conception. And on top of that, what about a sperm near an egg that's going to fertilize it? Is that a potential baby? By your definition of letting nature take its course, it is. On top of that...

If we start using potential humans, then wearing a condom also stops humans being born. So does being a cock block. That doesn't seem to be a useful term or distinction. More, this still raises the question of when you think a 'potential human' begins, and where/when/how does a 'potential...