- Moderator
- #21
Consciousness isn't the defining factor. The DNA makeup is.But does it have human consciousness? I'm not so sure.
A puzzle is still a puzzle even if one piece is missing.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Consciousness isn't the defining factor. The DNA makeup is.But does it have human consciousness? I'm not so sure.
Just realized this is in Politics?Didn't I already do a thread like this with the same OP?
I'm tempted to argue that consciousness is. A skin cell may contain human DNA, but it isn't a human life.Consciousness isn't the defining factor. The DNA makeup is.
A puzzle is still a puzzle even if one piece is missing.
You ask so many questions, but avoid answering any of them yourself.But does it have human consciousness? I'm not so sure.
Ah.Heartbeat. If a heart stopping means death, a heart beginning to beat signifies life. For any species.
Actually, to my understanding, a person who is clinically braindead can be taken off of life support. So this highly implies that consciousness plays a role in the right to life.You ask so many questions, but avoid answering any of them yourself.
This comment from you begs the question "are human beings (natural persons) to be defined by the human traits and characteristics they have? Or, should human beings (natural persons) be arbitrarily defined by characteristics they may only lack, temporarily, because they are so young.
For what it's worth, No laws require sapience, sentience, ability to feel pain, or any other shit like that for basic human rights or "personhood."
A skin cell may contain human DNA, but it isn't a human life.
Human life will have to be defined before its origin can be determined.I'm not convinced that it is a human life from the moment of conception (given that it doesn't have a brain, for example), but at some point during pregnancy, I believe it qualifies as a human life.
As though the answers will not be determined by politics. Bet I can guess yours.Just realized this is in Politics?
Daffuq?
I'm not convinced that it is a human life from the moment of conception (given that it doesn't have a brain, for example), but at some point during pregnancy, I believe it qualifies as a human life.
why not just answer my uestion,,
A skin cell contains the exact same DNA as the entire bodyA skin cell is a mere PART of a human being...as opposed to a brand new, genetically distinct, individual human organism. (A new human being.)
But I'm not good at explaining the scientific side of this, so I'll let Chuz Life or others answer your questions.
Exactlywhy not just answer my uestion,,
if its not a human then what species is it??
A skin cell contains the exact same DNA as the entire body
During an abortion the doctor does not destroy just a skin cell but the entire human life
One has only to see the difference between 4 and 9 weeks of pregnancy to recognise the logic of your conclusion.6 weeks.
I understand that misguided simple-minded thinking, but it's not reality and it never will be. Have you ever dealt with the ethics of taking someone off life support, personally? I have and it is nothing near as simple as you are trying to make it.Actually, to my understanding, a person who is clinically braindead can be taken off of life support. So this highly implies that consciousness plays a role in the right to life.
You're essentially defining a human life as DNA. I'm skeptical of that definition. I think consciousness has something to do with it.A skin cell contains the exact same DNA as the entire body
During an abortion the doctor does not destroy just a skin cell but the entire human life
Maybe that's the problem in a nutshell.As though the answers will not be determined by politics. Bet I can guess yours.