Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,016
- 14,757
- 2,180
...concluding that a cell is a person is a subjective interpretation. Not an objective fact. No matter what Appeal to Authority fallacy you offer us.
Well, let's test that...
Define the cell at issue.
As has already been explained in this thread but you have failed to read: a fertilized egg. A single cell.
Is it a cell, or a cluster of cells, which are developing into a human being?
I ask because if it is a single mature cell, it's not a person. It's a cell. Can you point us toward the comment wherein someone declared 'a cell' to be a human being?
Then you've just abandoned the 'any stage of development' mantra that is the core of the pro-life position.
Thank you. Even you can recognize the absurdity of concluding that a cell is a person. And without this assumption, the pro-life argument collapses. And the 'objective truth' argument collapses. As the conclusion that a cell is a person is a subjective interpretation. Not an objective fact.
Now, objectively speaking, a cluster of cells developing into a human being, is developing human life... with the same potential for its life as your life possesses, thus possessing the same rights you possess.
Its not a person. What you're describing is biological life. Something an arm and a few functional organs can meet. Something most cells in the human body can mirror. Something yeast can pull off. That's not personhood. It can't think, sense in any meaningful way, it has no level of brain activity that our law would recognize as a person being alive, it lacks any autonomy, any language, any culture, any consciousness. Its a cell.
And a person is more than mere cells.
The prolife conception of 'human life' could have someone with no brain, no head, and only enough of their brainstem in the stump of their neck to keep their organs functioning as being a full person. While the law and any rational person can recognize that such a subtraction removes virtually everything that makes us human.
Last edited: