Define a person ?
Does a person need a brain to be define as such ?
Here Is a dilemma for you …..is/are Siamese twins considered one or 2 person ?
It’s only 1 body ?

You are certainly entitled to that opinion.

This is an opinion, based heavily on a very broad definition of the word "life". Why do you feel the compulsion to foist your opinion on others? If you don't like abortions, don't get one - nobody is forcing you to. I don't like pineapple on pizza, but I don't campaign to get it outlawed so that nobody else can have it.

The heavy word Is actually person, not life.

It is actually a life (a living being) and that's not controversial, but we discuss on when it becomes a person which has legal and moral implications.

I disagree about other freedom examples because if you think that's a person deserving legal rights, then you want to act to protect it.

So an equivalence would be animal and plant right activists

Well if I think someone might be a person at conception (how can you know otherwise, if you're not an omniscient master of knowledge) then I should put my point across when people's lives might be at stake.

In your example it's possible that at some point in the future something is discovered that could revive that person, hypothetically. Also, I don't know enough to say that person isn't functioning somehow and "alive" like anybody else.

A heart is a heart I think once you take it out of someone it's not considered a human being and that is sort of evident. No, I guess, to your last question, if the person is still alive.

Well someone has begun, so I think that it's fair to consider a fertilized egg a person. I suppose a person might need a brain since someone might just die without one, but every developed person does have a brain, if you see what I'm saying. Conjoined twins are two persons because they're two individuals.

Exactly and at conception none of those exist at all yet …..

Ah, ok. You missed what I was saying. I guess it wasn't obvious. I don't think you could say the zygote isn't a person yet because the brain hasn't developed, life has begun.

I’m talking about an embryo after conception !
Takes 4 weeks to have a heart and 6 weeks for brain to start development.
So the way you agree previously about human without a heart or brain is “obviously” not a living human anymore , I wonder why you think differently with life at conception where none of those exist before many weeks after the fact .

Taking your example about a zygote , mind as well take a full functional body but brain dead , replace the brain with a plastic brain with AI chip inside and you would consider it a living human being ?
A heart still beating right ?
Yup technology ca do many thing like u previously hint at ….

Because at that point that's just what it's like.

And the brain replacement question, I mean, I guess maybe, I mean hypothetically maybe you could put the brain back in and the person would regain consciousness? Maybe once you remove someone's brain they die? I don't know.

Life and human being isn’t the same .
We are surrounded by life getting destroyed everyday by us .

It’s ok to believe in what u believe , but at least your are not implying a zygote or embryo is a human being .
I’m glad .

Yes it’s already hard to define a full gown human being without a brain ->no consciousness right ?
Imagine when it’s not even a fetus ….

Actually, I sort of am. If a fertilized egg is a person (life has begun, how could you say it's not a person? unless you somehow know enough to definitively say it's not a person, how can you?) then why wouldn't it be considered a human being?

Like already greatly expressed in this thread .
Dilemma:
You have a full grown baby just born beside you and let’s say 2 bottles containing 1 embryos each that belongs to you with your dna inside .
A fire occurs and u need to save them .

Unfortunately you can only bring one or the other to save their “life’s” , your full grown baby just born or 2 embryos in a bottle , which one u chose to save .

You mean like embryos that are going to develop into a child eventually? I guess in the extreme it comes down to personal preference at that point, I think I'm going with the baby every time since there would actually be suffering and I know it's actually a living human being. I don't know everything, but I don't know why a fertilized egg wouldn't be considered a living human being.

And I edited my answer to your brain replacement question, I didn't get across what I was trying to get across very well.

« I think; therefore I am ».

It’s ok if you believe a human being without a conscience still is human .

I don’t ….



I wont even go in the philosophical concept of cloning yourself and put some AI download memory chip from your previous body capabilities into the new one , in maybe the next 100 years ?

Ps: reread those 2 lines ,



u answer it yourself plenty on why both aren’t consider the same even tho you try to imply it is .
If it’s the same you just can’t sacrifice 2 babies to save 1 .
And obviously there is many reasons why you have to chose the « conscious » one .
You already enumerated 1 reason ( pain suffering) and there is many others .

Um, I DISAGREE with you. Our thoughts don't define reality, reality is static regardless of how we think about it. I don't think anyone could possibly know enough right now to definitively say that a fertilized egg is not a living human being. Supporting abortion once you're cognizant of that is reckless self-serving psychopathy. And this is broadening the topic matter, but as a believer in Jesus and God I think it's possible that my conscience informs me that taking the baby is the better option since there will be suffering. If the embryos are living people they will be going to heaven and will presumably not be suffering at all in the fire. Taking the baby seems like the better option.

If you don't see why a fertilized egg and a fully developed person could both be considered a human being I don't know what to say. I think you might just be inundated with abortion philosophy to the point where you don't see it. Edit: Unless I'm wrong somehow, there is stuff happening in the egg, why wouldn't that be considered "life" at that point? If it's life why wouldn't it be considered alive? The fertilized egg is going to eventually develop into a baby, why wouldn't it be considered a human being at that point?

Sorry about this, I think I inferred something from your post that wasn't what you were trying to say.

It's also possible my logical faculties inform me based on what reality is actually like that the embryos would need to be placed in women and somehow be raised in them to become babies and thus outweigh taking the actual baby. There's a lot going on here and it's a ridiculous circumstance to be used for the purpose you're using it for when examined.

I just reread my last 3 posts and they read pretty harsh. I wasn't trying to attack at all, but I don't know if they can be read that way.

U again said it yourself .
You take the baby because it’s actually a human being .
Fertilized eggs are far from being a healthy human , many stages are still needed to attain a fully healthy conscious baby …..
And it is far from certain it will actually be develop as an healthy baby .
Example:

https://www.marchofdimes.org/find-su...of%20pregnancy.


So no, possibility of X do not equal reality of X .
That’s why at each stage , we name it differently .

Which stage(s) do you consider to be human?

Meh never really thought about it .
But I guess at minimum having a functioning brain should be a prerequisite ?

https://www.zerotothree.org/resource...e%20the%20womb.

Calling human a bunch of cell with no heart and brain is pushing it imho.

Yeah, the problem is that there is no generally accepted definition of a human, and the only real starting points that make much sense and are easily determined are conception and birth.
But it's tough to say that a zygote is a human, and it's equally tough to claim that a fetus the day before birth is not a human, especially since almost all could survive outside of the womb at that point. Maybe there could be a place chosen somewhere in between. Having a functioning brain would be a reasonable place to say human life has begun, but that doesn't solve the abortion issue, as I don't think there is current technology that can tell when the brain of a fetus is functional.
Most countries (and states within the US which haven't completely outlawed abortion) pick some number of days past conception, but that's pretty arbitrary, and also nearly impossible to know (or at least to prove).

I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to what I wrote, nowhere did I imply I would take the baby because it's actually a human being, I've actually laid out a logical case for why a fertilized egg is a human being. I'm just not all knowing so I can't declare it with certainty.