"I'm not avoiding anything"
In my opinion you are avoiding this question because I have not seen an answer posted.
"On what basis should any creature without awareness or any personal interest be considered for person-hood? And other than a LACK of awareness, sentience, arms, legs, nervous tissue, brains, minds, and thoughts--indeed a LACK of any and all attributes of a human person other than homo sapien dna...what other lacking, failing, or shortcoming ought to be regarded as compelling reasons for granting PERSONAL rights to this egg--now that we have both agreed that "it has human DNA" was not the point??"
If you are saying that the basis is that it has human dna but human dna is not the point but it is human because it has human dna, then you are telling me only why you think it is human. And your answer sounds very much like a pair of shuffling feet. I asked you "On what basis should any creature without awareness or any personal interest be considered for person-hood?".
Equating human with human dna, whether you believe it is the point or not (and frankly to me you seem to be claiming both that dna is and that dna isn't the point) does not answer the question of basis or "why". If I say a big dog should be given ample walks and you say "why", my answer of because it is a dog tells you nothing and effectively evades any reasonable answer. If I ask you why a human should not be given a license before say 16 years of age and you answer because it is a human, it answers NOTHING. If I ask you why an egg with no interest in living and with no independant existence should have a right to life and you answer because it is a homo sapien, you answer ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You either have an argument or you don't. Glibly stating an irrelevancy over and over simply wastes everyones time. |
