identity of the unborn

[BNR32FAN]

There are prints on the soles of the feet too.

i still don’t see the relevance.

 

[Robban]

i still don’t see the relevance.

Well, for me it is wonderous that there can be so many prints, today about 8 billion not counting those who have gone before.
But it is so when man started to think he was so clever that he knew everything, that is when wonder died.

 

[muichimotsu]

Excellent point.

Of course, DNA is an even more detailed and certain marker of identity, and it's present from the instant of conception.

Like it or not, the two unique individuals become one unique individual at that moment.

If people can't handle that truth, then there is no hope for them.

That's not the same as being a person in the legal sense, there's far more than just having unique human DNA, otherwise my skin cells are a person under that absurd logic.

Conflating the genetic uniqueness with the possession of rights in the same vein as an infant already born ignores the supposed science you'll mine for whatever preconception you already have regarding the morality and legality of abortion

 

[Darkhorse]

That's not the same as being a person in the legal sense, there's far more than just having unique human DNA, otherwise my skin cells are a person under that absurd logic.

We must assume that we are discussing an entire functional person, otherwise the logic is absurd.

 

[Darkhorse]

Monozygotic [identical] twins share the same DNA, but have different fingerprints.

Yes, this has been known for quite a while.

In this case, fingerprints would be a more-certain marker of identity.

 

[muichimotsu]

We must assume that we are discussing an entire functional person, otherwise the logic is absurd.

Then we aren't discussing that with an unborn child still tied to its mother's metabolism, so my point stands that an infant is deserving of personhood, not a fetus

 

[holo]

Then we aren't discussing that with an unborn child still tied to its mother's metabolism, so my point stands that an infant is deserving of personhood, not a fetus

Being tied to another being's metabolism means you're not a person?

 

[Darkhorse]

An unborn child is an entire functional person at their stage of development.
Sure, they start out without arms & legs, etc., but even as a fertilized egg, they have everything necessary to become a finished body, assuming they remain connected to mom's metabolism for a few months.

I was once connected to a respirator for awhile; I didn't lose my personhood simply because I couldn't breathe on my own for a time.

 

[redleghunter]

Then we aren't discussing that with an unborn child still tied to its mother's metabolism, so my point stands that an infant is deserving of personhood, not a fetus

Why?

 

[Robban]

Thay have passports, ID's, Unique DNA, and a destiny.
We don't know what that destiny is.
I've been at the hospital while two twins were born at 450 grams each
and at the grave of the third who was strangled during birth.
We don't know what our destiny is till we arrive there.
But we can plan.

Well, that is it, we do not know.

Who knows the potential of an unborn,
maybe another Bach or Mozart.

Or maybe a son who is not interested in taking over the family buisness.

But we can plead with the heavens for an intervention.

 

[NxNW]

Excellent point.

Of course, DNA is an even more detailed and certain marker of identity, and it's present from the instant of conception. Like it or not, the two unique individuals become one unique individual at that moment.

If people can't handle that truth, then there is no hope for them.

The truth is that the above statement is false.

 

[NxNW]

the debate comes down to whether one sees human life in the womb as morally equal to all other human life outside the womb.

If the answer is “no” then the position is a subjective determination of a sub-human status of the human fetus.

It sounds like you're open to the argument that it's not a human being before it reaches the fetal stage.

 

[NxNW]

We will still be ourselves even after we have abandoned our fleshly bodies altogether (whether to glory or judgment).

That argument doesn't hold water unless you believe in the existence of the soul. What does the soul do that the brain does not?

 

[Sabertooth]

That argument doesn't hold water unless you believe in the existence of the soul. What does the soul do that the brain does not?

It is self-aware software, just like your computer [hardware] cannot function without its operating system [software]. Software is massless, and it can be re-installed on a subsequent device.

 

[redleghunter]

It sounds like you're open to the argument that it's not a human being before it reaches the fetal stage.

Where did you get that impression from?

 

[redleghunter]

The truth is that the above statement is false.

Actually @Darkhorse is correct.

 

[redleghunter]

That argument doesn't hold water unless you believe in the existence of the soul. What does the soul do that the brain does not?

Actually the question should be what does the mind do that the brain does not

 

[timothyu]

What does the soul do that the brain does not?

What is the purpose of data on a hard drive?

 

[redleghunter]

What is the purpose of data on a hard drive?

You are not suggesting in “cloud Gnosticism” are you?

 

[Sabertooth]

You are not suggesting in “cloud Gnosticism” are you?

I think that he is emphasizing my point. Such data is not collected to facilitate computer [read: brain] operation. It is collected at the interest of the "user" (whom the "operating system" serves/accommodates).