Search results

The entire point of the hypothetical in question is that this is inapplicable. There is no sperm cell adding the other half of the chromosomes, their genome may well be built from more than two sources, completely shattering your premise because their lineage ends up containing three or more...

If one's parents have to be human, how did the first humans happen? And what about people who don't have two parents, or who have two mothers, or two fathers and a surrogate, due to technology replacing the natural process of conception? Your definition is very narrow in ways that result in a...

Again, we are talking about the definition of "human" here, any real case you leave out is saying a person is not human. Because they were "born wrong". There shouldn't even be an argument in the first place, the fact your definition causes them is a massive problem for it.

...No? There has been a lot of work in not needing any male participation in creating a child. In several ways. Again, the naturalism bias astounds me. You are excluding an extremely blunt edge-case from how you are defining what is human. "A rare possibility" should not lead to somebody not...

Except that a woman can be cloned by creating the embryo artificially, then she can carry the child to term herself. There is no father, on any level, in that situation. Your definition doesn't work with something we can already do, in several different ways. It's also self-referential in a...

Actually that's the point, absence of brain activity is a clear indication an organism cannot be a conscious person. Hence the additional qualifier of DNA meeting some metric for at least Genus Homo.

Well, you can tie it to pretty much any vital organ, heart's the easiest to identify and brain's the thing responsible for what ethics *generally* concerns itself with. If the baby's missing a heart, that's developmentally fatal.