I'll try explaining this way. as I said at the beginning a Zygote is distinct in a molecular, cellular and genetic manner from a sperm and egg. It's also closer in respects to an organism than a cell such a a skin or bladder cell. Thus scientifically speaking it's a human.
Hardly. If we could determine personhood through biology which I think there's ample evidence for we wouldn't need to move to philosophy. The only reason why it has moved onto a philosophical debate is due to the overwhelming evidence. During the abortion debate of the late 60s early 70s one main argument was that we couldn't know if the foetus was human or more accurately "alive". Since most definitions of personhood are ad hoc I think it good to have the base of the argument best on science which is objective.
This is exactly like when creationists deny the scientific evidence and start applying to theoretics and philosophy. To divide personhood and humanhood ultimately leads personhood to be based on characteristics which are arbitrary by definition rather than actual science.
May I ask, what would be the definition of "personhood" for you and what empirical or even philosophical evidence have you obtained to back it up?
If we do concede that personhood is a philosophical concept (which you're advocating for) that it's hardly cherry-picking because they're as much as a layman than you and me. I've been very careful to establish the earliest point of humanhood being a Zygote and only inferred personhood could derive from there. However the biologists who do equate humanhood to personhood would nearly all agree with a Zygote being a person.
It's actually both but nevertheless it very true that many do consider that the start of development as the start of humanhood which is a perfectly reasonable and scientific stance to take.
Yes this is true. One of the reasons why biologists consider a Zygote the start of humanhood is due to being the start of development. We can debate on whenever a Zygote is a person but it isn't even debated that a Zygote is a human anymore and not a single biologist believes a sperm/egg is one. I know you may think that it makes perfectly logical sense why one could arbitrary choose a sperm but I can assure you (and I'll add more evidence if you would like me to) that it falls apart very quickly on the basis of biology.
Okay. If what you said were true, that would mean that at one point we were TWO distinct living beings (a sperm and egg) and since one was not produce by the other through parthenogenesis (one "thing" producing/generating another) it's ridiculous to say that we at one point a sperm and a egg. One of the main reasons why biologists don't say anything earlier than the Zygote is that it's really silly to claim that we both a sperm and a egg and thus the earliest biologically and the most accepted is the Zygote.
An egg can never reproduce an egg through any means and a sperm cannot reproduce an sperm through any means (parthenogenesis or through cell division). both sperm and egg will die if they do not bind. No matter what the body does. However when the Zygote is formed the body will usually try to keep it alive and will develop into a baby.
The difference here is genetic. Genetically speaking a sperm and a egg are not human whereas a Zygote is. The genetic coding to determine your eye colour, hair colour, skin colour in all determined slightly less than a second after the sperm and egg are binded. This is known as Heterotypic cell fusion due to the cells being different. The new cell is now called a symplasm.
Another is as soon as the sperm and the egg bind together we actually have a new, unique ontological being which also does not occur before such an act. The sperm and egg are much closer to a normal cell than they are to the fertilized egg you're comparing it with.
deletedabout 5 years
the #shoutyourabortion thing on twitter is sick and vile. i like #shoutyourchild much better
You do realize that those quotes does not disprove my statements? The human development starts with an egg and a sperm combining their data to become a zygote. So the fact is that we all were at one point a sperm and an egg that combined. They have not started developing prior to combining, but that does not mean they aren't earliest states of human existence and of our race, we didn't develop into a zygote from nowhere.
So your statement that: "due to person hood being very closely linked to being a human (or mutually exclusive) the earliest form of a human should be the earliest point. Due to that being the earliest stage of a human's existence"
is incorrectly applied to the to the zygote and not the sperm/egg. It's a very strange view to have on person hood to begin with and most biologists does not equate human existence with person hood(as you acknowledge later), so you're basically just cherrypicking a fact and presenting it as a "biologists view"(not that you stated it as such, but it was implied).
What biologists tend to argue(which is the part I assume you got confused by) is that the they consider the start of development is the start of human hood, while you made the claim that start is the first point existence. Regardless of point, its basically just arbitrarily drawing a line in early human existence while not considering what person hood actually is. You could logically just as easily draw the line at ejaculation or when the zygote forms. But most biologist(which you later acknowledged) don't consider neither start of person hood.
What you consider a person to be is mostly a philosophical discussion, that you later can determine when that actually is with biological facts. But your arguments are contra dictionary as I pointed out.
Just reminding everyone that 40% of illegal immigrants in the US come from the air and not on land. Furthermore, increasing border control may force illegal immigrants to actually stay in said country rather than to eventually return home.
p.s. Many aspects of Conservatism in America is incompatible with Capitalism.
All that says is that our current system is working. That is the number they are reporting by the CURRENT system, and in some instances the number is going down. As the video I linked shows, our current system is VERY extensive, without the wall Trump proposes. Your links go *only* off of people apprehended via our current system. There is nothing in your data to suggest we are missing a huge number of people who are crossing elsewhere.
Let him focus on god for a bit, trust me. You're dealing with presuppositions that aren't going to be debased with facts and arguments, you have to target the source.
Already commented on that. It says nothing to back up the arguements of "so many children/drugs are being snuck past our wall-less border! we need berriers!"
I assume since you linked it as a source that you have access to it. Congrats on being able to access the $600 a year site, man. That's something. Do you have a source for us less privileged folk, though?
According to this graph 100k kids came through in 2 years.
I don't think it's right that people are sending kids on a journey through the desert alone, or with random strangers. It's not safe and easy for them to be abused.
If our border can be crossed by 100k children, it's obvious the security we have isn't working.
Do you have a source for us less privileged folk, though?
