by themselves, none of those cells are a human person
Yet they are alive and human. But not persons. So my question remains, what more than being alive and human accords the zygote the person status.
A human blood cell is not and will never be a human person.
A human liver cell is not and will never be a human person.
I will attempt to answer. From your having made that point, the inference is that you are suggesting a contrast, that, unlike blood and liver cells, a zygote, assuming it survives, will be a human person. Fine, but that still does not, scientifically (your preference) or logically (my preference), make it a person yet. That would make it a potential or pre-person.
There's still a missing link. What's the missing link between living plus human and person?
Then define the scientific basis for when something becomes a person.
I've told you that it's when it first breathes air--when it is operating as a distinct entity in its intended environment. Science categorizes things. Science differentiates between chickens and eggs, between seeds, the plant that springs from the seed, and the fruit that grows on the plant. A radish seed is not a radish. Nor is a radish plant. A radish is a radish. Logically, a born zygote is a person.
If you want to deviate from scientific taxonomy, give me an argument. Connect the dots.
I've offered to give you other arguments that weigh against your conclusion.
I can, OTOH, argue the question of personhood from several pertinent perspectives.
There's tradition as displayed in the culture's traditional processes. There's tradition as displayed in a culture's traditional language usage. And then there's the no-harm-no-foul moral argument.
You have not taken me up on them. Nor have you offered an argument that connects your dots. You just keep reasserting living and human as though that were sufficient. Hmmmm. |
