Child sacrifice in America dealt with by heaven

[SPF]

So it’s “individual” now? It seems as though your terms are so slippery as to be unusable.

You can disagree with what modern science teaches, but you’ll need to bring some support.

I provided plenty of credible references for you that clearly demonstrate that scientifically we know at this point that a new human being, a unique individual with its own DNA comes into existence at fertilization.

If you disagree I welcome you to explain how all the reference material cited is wrong. At this point I’ve seen nothing more than you’re attempted hand waiving of the evidence hoping that if you’re dismissive enough it will somehow make the science wrong. Not impressive to say the least.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You can disagree with what modern science teaches, but you’ll need to bring some support.

I provided plenty of credible references for you that clearly demonstrate that scientifically we know at this point that a new human being, a unique individual with its own DNA comes into existence at fertilization.

If you disagree I welcome you to explain how all the reference material cited is wrong. At this point I’ve seen nothing more than you’re attempted hand waiving of the evidence hoping that if you’re dismissive enough it will somehow make the science wrong. Not impressive to say the least.

As “science” doesn’t have an opinion on when personhood begins (because personhood isn’t a scientific concept, it’s a philosophical one), you’re the one who’s demonstrably wrong.

You’ve been told time and time again that no one is arguing that human tissue isn’t present at conception, and that relying on that alone to determine rights leads to nonsensical situations.

 

[SPF]

As “science” doesn’t have an opinion on when personhood begins (because personhood isn’t a scientific concept, it’s a philosophical one), you’re the one who’s demonstrably wrong.

The point that I’m making is as follows:

1. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

2. The distinction between a human being and a human person is a subjectively and arbitrarily fabricated distinction that can differ in opinion by as many people as are discussing it.

Feel free to explain how I’m wrong in either of those points.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

1. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

hu·man be·ing
noun

1. a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Since a 20 week old fetus isn’t a child to me, and obviously doesn’t have superior mental development, by this definition it doesn’t qualify as a human being.

Now, I’m not saying that you can’t find a definition of “human being” that corresponds to your view. I’m saying that the definition is so vague as to be unhelpful. So it must be ignored in any of these discussions.

2. The distinction between a human being and a human person is a subjectively and arbitrarily fabricated distinction that can differ in opinion by as many people as are discussing it.

Yep. It’s as subjective and arbitrary as your belief that a fetus should have rights.

My subjective opinion about personhood has reasoning behind it. Reasoning you’ve yet to successfully refute. Your subjective option is based on emotion and religious beliefs.

And as I keep having to point out, you’re not addressing the inconsistencies in your opinion.

 

[SPF]

hu·man be·ing
noun

1. a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Since a 20 week old fetus isn’t a child to me, and obviously doesn’t have superior mental development, by this definition it doesn’t qualify as a human being.

Now, I’m not saying that you can’t find a definition of “human being” that corresponds to your view. I’m saying that the definition is so vague as to be unhelpful. So it must be ignored in any of these discussions.

Really? How can you expect to be taken seriously when you’re outright rejecting biology and embryology textbooks and educated authorities in favor of a generic dictionary definition? The educated, non-religious scientific minds are unified in this - a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. If the reference material wasn’t enough I would be happy to provide dozens of more. You’re not arguing against me here, you’re arguing against established science.

My subjective opinion about personhood has reasoning behind it. Reasoning you’ve yet to successfully refute. Your subjective option is based on emotion and religious beliefs.

The only points I’ve been making so far have been that

1) A new human being comes into existence at fertilization

2) Personhood is a subjective and made up term based upon the reasoning of whoever is talking about it.

And frankly, it looks like you’ve acknowledged that your position on personhood is subjective, so thank you.

 

[SPF]

Yep. It’s as subjective and arbitrary as your belief that a fetus should have rights.

PS - I haven’t said that a fetus should have rights. All I’ve said so far are the two points made above. Once you acknowledge the two points then we can move onto what that looks like practically if you like.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Really? How can you expect to be taken seriously when you’re outright rejecting biology and embryology textbooks and educated authorities in favor of a generic dictionary definition? The educated, non-religious scientific minds are unified in this - a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. If the reference material wasn’t enough I would be happy to provide dozens of more. You’re not arguing against me here, you’re arguing against established science.

I’ve discussed this in the past with biology professors. The ones I’ve talked to are in agreement that the term “human being” is subjective, as it seemingly encompasses more than just “human”.

So if you want to say that something that’s human begins at conception, I’m fine with that. But I’ve seen too many of these discussions devolve into trickery by wordplay to agree to use ”human being” as a term.

The only points I’ve been making so far have been that

1) A new human being comes into existence at fertilization

2) Personhood is a subjective and made up term based upon the reasoning of whoever is talking about it.

And frankly, it looks like you’ve acknowledged that your position on personhood is subjective, so thank you.

It’s as subjective as your views, whether you admit they are or not. And once again, my subjective views are based on reason, and yours are based on emotion.

And “human being” is also a made up term. All terms are made up. It’s nonsensical to think they aren’t...

 

[SPF]

I’ve discussed this in the past with biology professors. The ones I’ve talked to are in agreement that the term “human being” is subjective, as it seemingly encompasses more than just “human”.

Well unless you want to share some published work from these professors I don’t know what kind of credibility they have. For me, I’ll continue to rely on credible experts.

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

It’s as subjective as your views, whether you admit they are or not. And once again, my subjective views are based on reason, and yours are based on emotion.

This standard and fallacious tactic of attempting to dismiss something someone says because it’s based on “emotion” is almost as lame as your attempt at vast condescending hand waiving.

I would love for you to show me the emotional foundation for these two points:


1) A new human being comes from into existence at fertilization.

2)Personhood is a subjective and made up term based upon the reasoning of whoever is talking about it.

Where’s the emotional foundation? Point one is based upon modern science and academic textbooks. Point two was admitted to by yourself.

This is becoming dull, neither you nor the non-interested atheist can move beyond basic fallacies.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Well unless you want to share some published work from these professors I don’t know what kind of credibility they have. For me, I’ll continue to rely on credible experts.

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

This standard and fallacious tactic of attempting to dismiss something someone says because it’s based on “emotion” is almost as lame as your attempt at vast condescending hand waiving.

I would love for you to show me the emotional foundation for these two points:


1) A new human being comes from into existence at fertilization.

2)Personhood is a subjective and made up term based upon the reasoning of whoever is talking about it.

Where’s the emotional foundation? Point one is based upon modern science and academic textbooks. Point two was admitted to by yourself.

This is becoming dull, neither you nor the non-interested atheist can move beyond basic fallacies.

There’s no fallacies in what I’ve written, because I’m not making an argument. I’m not saying you’re wrong because you’re basing your stance on emotion. If I had, that would be a fallacy...

So are you going to be ok with the following statement or not?

“Something that’s human begins at conception.”

Because if you keep on insisting on using “human being”, there’s no point in continuing, since I won’t be able to trust that you’re going to resort to wordplay to try and win the argument. Like I’ve said, I’ve seen that far too often. But if you’re ok with proceeding using the statement above, then by all means let’s continue the discussion.

Either way, this thread accomplished what I wanted it to.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Hello again,
I think we're both quite happy to keep pointing out your mistakes.
Like this:

1) A new human being comes from into existence at fertilization.

You keep saying that as if it wins the argument. And you keep posting quotes which say the same thing in different words. But both Todd and I are in agreement with you. We're pointing out that a new human organism is not the same thing as a person.

2)Personhood is a subjective and made up term based upon the reasoning of whoever is talking about it.

Again, we've explained the criteria, and I would be happy to debate them with anyone who says that they think personhood depends on having a working heart (which it obviously doesn't, as hearts can be transplanted) or being born (which it obviously doesn't, as one does not become a person based on location, ie inside or outside the womb).

You, on the other hand, have been presented with arguments and failed to refute them - or, sometimes, even to acknowledge them.

Since you won't answer them, I can do it for you. Feel free to correct me, if you are able.

1. If your brain was moved to Australia, and your body remained in the USA, and if both of them were kept alive and capable of reunification - then "you" would be in Australia, and if your body died but your brain could still be transplanted into another body, then "you" would still be alive.
2. If it were possible to activate an artificial intelligence that genuinely did have the rights of a living person, then it would be no crime to disassemble it before it was activated.
3. Currently, miscarriages are not treated as a health crisis, even though millions of them happen every year. From the point of view of pro-choice people, this is completely normal; the disposal of a small lump of flesh that would have become a person is no problem. but from the pro-life point of view, such a phenomenon should be a public health crisis, and there should be teams of doctors and scientists working to prevent the deaths of millions of children a year, just as there are to fight childhood cancer and other causes of infant diseases. But there isn't. Why not? Why don't pro-lifers see miscarriages as a public health crisis?
The answer is, of course, that pro-lifers are actually just anti-abortionists, and their opinions are the result of a political strategy in the 1970s and 80s, as shown by the fact that before then, the evangelical community was pretty solidly pro-choice. But then they found that accusing their opponents of being baby-killers - no matter how ridiculous the idea, and the harm it caused - was an effective way to consolidate political and religious influence.

Oh, and one more thing. You already effectively lost the argument when you said you could never hope to persuade us, because your opinion was a religious one. That's wrong, of course, but if you think it's true, then you concede that it only applies to your religion, which means that nonreligious people can ignore it, and so can the religiously neutral laws of countries.

 

[SPF]

I’m not saying you’re wrong because you’re basing your stance on emotion. If I had, that would be a fallacy...

And my point which you chose not to respond to was that nothing I said was based on emotion. I’ll take your lack of a response as a recognition that the fallacious, uncharitable, and condescending comment was correctly called out and I trust you won’t resort to it again.

So are you going to be ok with the following statement or not?

“Something that’s human begins at conception.”

My position is the same as what modern science says. That being that at conception their comes into existence a new human being.

Human beings begin a 25 year developmental period at fertilization and are no less of a human being at any point during their development. A 20 week old fetus possesses the same moral worth and value as a 2 year old, and as a 45 year old.

 

[Selene03]

There's no argument that human life began at conception. Science even makes that claim. There is also no argument that the one-celled zygote is an organism. Science has also made that claim. However, if you're going to use the dictionary, then let's start with organism. According to Dictionary.com, the scientific term for organism is (the bold is mine):

organism in Science
organism
[ôr′gə-nĭz′əm]
An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multicellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry andhomology of anatomic and molecular structures.

Human beings are already in that scientific definition. We are multicellular and part of the animal kingdom. We can also look up the synonyms of organism. According to Thesaurus.com (the bold is mine):

organism
see definition of organism

• animal
• creature
• structure
• being
• body
• entity
• person
• plant
• morphon

Therefore, it can be said that the person is an organism. ALL living things have a right to live, but with humans, this right to live comes first and above before all other non-human living organisms.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

And my point which you chose not to respond to was that nothing I said was based on emotion. I’ll take your lack of a response as a recognition that the fallacious, uncharitable, and condescending comment was correctly called out and I trust you won’t resort to it again.

Your belief that life begins at conception is based solely on your religious convictions. You have already admitted this when you said that you valued every human life because you were a Christian, and as an atheist, you would not expect me to understand this. While I commend you for your honesty, in saying this you lost the argument that your convictions should apply to anyone not of your religion, or to the religiously neutral laws of the country.

To address both SPF and Selene at once:

My position is the same as what modern science says. That being that at conception their comes into existence a new human being.

There's no argument that human life began at conception. Science even makes that claim. There is also no argument that the one-celled zygote is an organism. Science has also made that claim. However, if you're going to use the dictionary, then let's start with organism. According to Dictionary.com, the scientific term for organism is (the bold is mine):

Yes. We know. And we agree. As Todd and I have both repeatedly stated over the course of this thread, there is no argument that an individual organism is created at conception, or that it is living. The argument is at which point a piece of insentient flesh becomes a person. We have argued that personhood is based on the faculty for thinking, and you have failed to disprove that.

Therefore, it can be said that the person is an organism. ALL living things have a right to live, but with humans, this right to live comes first and above before all other non-human living organisms.

Except in the cases where that organism lacks a brain, as shown by:
1. Any part of a human can be removed without affecting the personality, except for the brain. Therefore, it is a working brain which produces the personality and, absent this, the organism may be living, but is not a person.
2. If a human body is capable of being kept alive, but its brain functions cannot be sustained, we have no obligation to keep the body alive.
3. You both already know this, because while you and the pro-life movement are zealous in your demands that we consider the unborn to be persons when faced with abortion, you have no such concern when the unborn "person" dies of a miscarriage.
Now, I am fairly certain that you would like to respond to point 3 either by saying "But miscarriages are not murder, they are natural deaths" - or by ignoring it altogether, as has happened at other times in this thread. In which case, I would like to point out that:
Currently, miscarriages are not treated as a health crisis, even though millions of them happen every year. From the point of view of pro-choice people, this is completely normal; the disposal of a small lump of flesh that would have become a person is no problem. but from the pro-life point of view, such a phenomenon should be a public health crisis, and there should be teams of doctors and scientists working to prevent the deaths of millions of children a year, just as there are to fight childhood cancer and other causes of infant diseases. But there isn't. Why not? Why don't pro-lifers see miscarriages as a public health crisis?

 

[Selene03]

Your belief that life begins at conception is based solely on your religious convictions. You have already admitted this when you said that you valued every human life because you were a Christian, and as an atheist, you would not expect me to understand this. While I commend you for your honesty, in saying this you lost the argument that your convictions should apply to anyone not of your religion, or to the religiously neutral laws of the country.

To address both SPF and Selene at once:


Yes. We know. And we agree. As Todd and I have both repeatedly stated over the course of this thread, there is no argument that an individual organism is created at conception, or that it is living. The argument is at which point a piece of insentient flesh becomes a person. We have argued that personhood is based on the faculty for thinking, and you have failed to disprove that.


Except in the cases where that organism lacks a brain, as shown by:
1. Any part of a human can be removed without affecting the personality, except for the brain. Therefore, it is a working brain which produces the personality and, absent this, the organism may be living, but is not a person.
2. If a human body is capable of being kept alive, but its brain functions cannot be sustained, we have no obligation to keep the body alive.
3. You both already know this, because while you and the pro-life movement are zealous in your demands that we consider the unborn to be persons when faced with abortion, you have no such concern when the unborn "person" dies of a miscarriage.
Now, I am fairly certain that you would like to respond to point 3 either by saying "But miscarriages are not murder, they are natural deaths" - or by ignoring it altogether, as has happened at other times in this thread. In which case, I would like to point out that:
Currently, miscarriages are not treated as a health crisis, even though millions of them happen every year. From the point of view of pro-choice people, this is completely normal; the disposal of a small lump of flesh that would have become a person is no problem. but from the pro-life point of view, such a phenomenon should be a public health crisis, and there should be teams of doctors and scientists working to prevent the deaths of millions of children a year, just as there are to fight childhood cancer and other causes of infant diseases. But there isn't. Why not? Why don't pro-lifers see miscarriages as a public health crisis?

Every living thing has a right to life from the smallest microbe to the largest whale. Whether it has a brain or not is irrelevant. The most valuable of all is human life.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Every living thing has a right to life from the smallest microbe to the largest whale. Whether it has a brain or not is irrelevant. The most valuable of all is human life.

Well, we've already shown that whether is has a brain or not is highly relevant, so please feel free to either show the mistake in this or have the good grace to admit that you're wrong.
Also - "the smallest microbe"? Are you serious?
Also, this might be something of a tangent, but I can't resist. Are you a vegetarian? You know, since you believe that every living thing has a right to life? Do you not eat meat? And, if so, how do you feel about eating the plants that were pulled up, their lives terminated so you could eat?

More importantly, you haven't yet answered points 1, 2 and 3 above.

 

[Selene03]

Well, we've already shown that whether is has a brain or not is highly relevant, so please feel free to either show the mistake in this or have the good grace to admit that you're wrong.
Also - "the smallest microbe"? Are you serious?
Also, this might be something of a tangent, but I can't resist. Are you a vegetarian? You know, since you believe that every living thing has a right to life? Do you not eat meat? And, if so, how do you feel about eating the plants that were pulled up, their lives terminated so you could eat?

More importantly, you haven't yet answered points 1, 2 and 3 above.

My brother, if man killed all the chickens, then there would be no more chickens left to eat. So yes....even the chicken's life is important. Every creature has its purpose and human life is the most valuable. Man is the steward of the earth.

 

[SPF]

Your belief that life begins at conception is based solely on your religious convictions. You have already admitted this when you said that you valued every human life because you were a Christian, and as an atheist, you would not expect me to understand this. While I commend you for your honesty, in saying this you lost the argument that your convictions should apply to anyone not of your religion, or to the religiously neutral laws of the country.

Saying silly things like this make me wonder how educated you actually are and whether or not you actually believe what you’re typing.

To assert that an argument has already lost from the outside because one of the premises involves the existence of God is to assume that there is no God. Now, clearly you believe God doesn’t exist but that doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist or that there cannot be sound and logical arguments that include His existence.

P1: All humans beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

P2: a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

Conclusion: Human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization.

Now, this conclusion is going to be true if the premises are true. And if the premises are true, then it doesn’t matter whether a person is an atheist or not.

And honestly, I’m not talking about what laws should or shouldn’t be made, so that’s an obvious red herring. I’m talking about reality and how things are. Whether or not there should be laws that reflect this truth is another topic altogether.

1. Any part of a human can be removed without affecting the personality, except for the brain. Therefore, it is a working brain which produces the personality and, absent this, the organism may be living, but is not a person.

This is begging the question because you are assuming there that there is a difference between a human being and a human person and that it rests in the brain.

2. If a human body is capable of being kept alive, but its brain functions cannot be sustained, we have no obligation to keep the body alive.

This is because the human being is now dead. Watch them for years if you want, and you’ll see no change, no growth, no development. This is not analogous to a growing, living, developing fetus that is alive. Once again you’re making a categorical mistake that is not analogous.

3. You both already know this, because while you and the pro-life movement are zealous in your demands that we consider the unborn to be persons when faced with abortion, you have no such concern when the unborn "person" dies of a miscarriage.

As a father who has gone through a miscarriage with his wife, I can testify to the emotional trauma that couples endure. They are sad, and they are tragic. From a Christian worldview, they are the result of sin entering the world.

However, this is once again another red herring as the tragedy of miscarriages has no bearing upon the moral worth and value of unborn human beings.

In conclusion, once again we find the atheists posts littered with question begging, red herrings, and categorical mistakes. Not impressive or persuasive.

It’s worth emphasizing again that at least one of the atheists has admitted that their fabricated distinction between a human being and a human person is subjective. And that’s really the point, 10 different people can have 10 different lines, and they’ll all be subjective and arbitrarily determined. This only reinforces the truth that there is no actual distinction between a human non-person and a human person.

We either all have inherent moral worth and value from the outset, or we don’t ever have inherent moral worth and value.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

My brother, if man killed all the chickens, then there would be no more chickens left to eat. So yes....even the chicken's life is important. Every creature has its purpose and human life is the most valuable. Man is the steward of the earth.

So...it's okay to kill and eat chickens, just so long as you don't wipe out the species?
Well then, so much for the argument that all living creatures have a right to life. Clearly, chickens don't, so long as we don't kill all of them. I can quite agree with that.

 

[Selene03]

So...it's okay to kill and eat chickens, just so long as you don't wipe out the species?
Well then, so much for the argument that all living creatures have a right to life. Clearly, chickens don't, so long as we don't kill all of them. I can quite agree with that.

Human life has more value than the chickens.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Saying silly things like this make me wonder how educated you actually are and whether or not you actually believe what you’re typing.
To assert that an argument has already lost from the outside because one of the premises involves the existence of God is to assume that there is no God. Now, clearly you believe God doesn’t exist but that doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist or that there cannot be sound and logical arguments that include His existence.

I'm reasonably well-educated, thank you very much, and I know exactly what I'm saying. Nor am I particularly puzzled at your misreading me (as you have done regularly) because I know that you simply don't want to face the facts.
My goal here is not to educate you - well, it is, technically, but I accept that this is extremely unlikely. My goal is simply to show that your objections to the personhood theory don't hold water.

As your arguments are leakier than a colander, this isn't difficult. Right, here we go, then.

P1: All humans beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.
P2: a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.
Conclusion: Human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization.
Now, this conclusion is going to be true if the premises are true. And if the premises are true, then it doesn’t matter whether a person is an atheist or not.

Please try to listen carefully, SPF, and try to follow.
You are correct in what you say.
If.
Your goal is to explain why you yourself believe abortion is wrong.

If, on the other hand, your goal is to convince me that abortion is wrong, then I hope you can see the illogic in saying "You should be against abortion because God says it is wrong."
So, in other words, yes, you did lose the argument from the outset because you based the success of the argument on all participants being Christians, and I'm not.
If you yourself wish to hold the religious belief that abortion is wrong, then by all means do so. But if you wish to persuade me of it, you're not going to succeed with "abortion is wrong because God said so," because I don't believe that God exists.

And honestly, I’m not talking about what laws should or shouldn’t be made, so that’s an obvious red herring. I’m talking about reality and how things are. Whether or not there should be laws that reflect this truth is another topic altogether.

Well, it's pretty well-known that the pro-life movement has the goal of changing the laws to make abortion illegal, but it's true that we didn't discuss that specifically here, so I'm happy to let that one go, and even to apologise for bringing it up.

This is begging the question because you are assuming there that there is a difference between a human being and a human person and that it rests in the brain.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that any part of a human can be removed without affecting the personality, except for the brain. This is a known scientific fact. If you doubt it, then please show me a case in which a part of the body was removed and it affected the personality of the individual, or a case in which a brain was removed without affecting the personality.

This is because the human being is now dead. Watch them for years if you want, and you’ll see no change, no growth, no development. This is not analogous to a growing, living, developing fetus that is alive. Once again you’re making a categorical mistake that is not analogous.

You keep saying that, but it's not true, as I've explained many times. The point is that without a brain, personhood ceases to exist - or, in the case of the fetus, has never existed.

As a father who has gone through a miscarriage with his wife, I can testify to the emotional trauma that couples endure. They are sad, and they are tragic. From a Christian worldview, they are the result of sin entering the world.
However, this is once again another red herring as the tragedy of miscarriages has no bearing upon the moral worth and value of unborn human beings.

You have my sympathies.
Now, please would you go back and actually read what I said? I was not referring to any one person, as I am perfectly well aware that a miscarriage may be seen as a genuine tragedy by individuals. What I was pointing out was that pro-life people - and am I mistaken in including you in this? - do not see miscarriages as a public health epidemic, even though it involves the deaths of millions of "children" a year.
Can you explain this?

In conclusion, once again we find the atheists posts littered with question begging, red herrings, and categorical mistakes. Not impressive or persuasive.

I think it's quite clear that you have not actually read anything I said.

It’s worth emphasizing again that at least one of the atheists has admitted that their fabricated distinction between a human being and a human person is subjective. And that’s really the point, 10 different people can have 10 different lines, and they’ll all be subjective and arbitrarily determined. This only reinforces the truth that there is no actual distinction between a human non-person and a human person.

Todd and I have both been very clear that a functioning brain is the criteria for personhood, and I am quite willing to debate the issue with anyone who thinks that personhood can be based on having a heart or on any other critieria. The question would then be, can they answer my case? Which you can't.

We either all have inherent moral worth and value from the outset, or we don’t ever have inherent moral worth and value.

As you've said, many times. It doesn't get any truer with repetition, but it does start to look more and more desperate as you continue to use it in lieu of actually answering questions.