Completely and utterly WRONG yet again! My post #198 above contains a link PROVING you WRONG about what constitutes UNIQUE DNA! https://blog.helix.com/dna-genetics-recombination-ancestry/ NOT my problem if you failed to either read and/or comprehend the FACTS that were PROVIDED for your EDIFICATION. Sad!
You are the one having problems with the difference between a "Human cell" and "A Human" - thats not good OK .. but being unique does not turn a single human cell into a human ?
Havn't seen anyone even try to show how the cell at conception is a human. You may be confusing repetition of premise with proof of claim.
I have not made any fallacious assertions. You are the one that thinks repetition of premise is proof of claim .. and you do it "AGAIN" in the above post stating "You were a human because you were a human" = assumed premise fallacy "repetition of premise" is not proof of claim. - for the 10th time. Your reference seems to be claiming that a zygote is an embryo. https://www.javatpoint.com/zygote-vs-embryo In any case - that there are various stages involved in the creation of a human .. does not mean a human exists at any of those stages. Your task - is to show that a zygote is a human - and once again you have failed to address the question.
Why would I try and proof some made up nonsense that is obviously false ? Quit trying to project what you do onto others. I have not claimed that the zygote is 'some other type of life" . Don't even know what you are talking about .. a type of life other than what ? I have stated numerous times that the zygote is "human life" The problem for you is that this does not make a zygote - "A human"
"You likened those who use the word zygote to Nazi's claiming the Jews were subhuman". Yes you did - pointing out similarities between Nazi's and and those who use the word zygote -- IS - Likening those who use the word zygote to Nazi's Duh. Further .. the supposed similarities you point out are false. I have not seen anyone in this thread claim a Jew is not a human. The claim is that you have not shown that a zygote is a human. Yammering on about Nazi's and Jews does not show that the zygote is a human.
While you are correct - this is a pointless exercise as -- who cares of the zygote is "Unique" Since when does "uniqueness" - in any way shape or form - show that a zygote is "A Human" - a horse zygote is just as unique -- but a horse zygore is neither a horse nor a human. If one looks up a definition of "A Human" - and there are many .. none one will have uniqueness as a defining quality - because it is not a defining quality. For example - one definition of "A Human" - is the definition of "Homo Sapiens" Note that not one - but "ALL" characteristics are required for the entity to be called "A Human" "Uniqueness" is not one of the characteristics... but even if it was the organism needs to have "ALL" the characteristics to be classed as a "Homo Sapiens" This is not the only legitimate definition of what a human is .. there are others .. which include characteristics not found above such as sentience. "uniqueness" on the other hand .. is not one of these required characteristics .. never mind being the only characteristic required. Nor does restating inapplicable gibberish turn a zygote into a human.
All you do is play word games in order to justify an atrocity. Sounds very similar to what others have done throughout history. You keep proving me right.
Because you keep trying to asset it is not human life. If it is not a human then what other life form is it.
Nope that is you who is having that problem trying to distinguish between a whole human and a part of a human.
Why should I thank you for assigning to me something which I did not say, and nothing I said could lead you to that. Try addressing what I actually said.........oh that's right you can't.
Of course it's a human. It's just not a person until later in its development. The distinction is the capacity for thought and consciousness. It's separate organism made of living cells and tissue with its own DNA separate from the mother. The is nothing to debate here. We need objective markers to categorize and define things, and DNA is one of those markers. If we were to define and categorize based on what people feel or want to feel is a adequate definition instead of using distinct objective markers, science would cease to be coherent and consistent.
