• LostThomist
    46
    1) For the purpose of a clear argument I will (for the time being) separate being biologically human from any concept of personhood. In doing so it is undeniable to say that biological human life begins at conception.

    And even if you dispute my scientific claim, I can reprove the fact through metaphysics. In metaphysics there are accidental and substantial changes. Accidental changes are changes to the subject which does not change the essence of the subject. Hair for example can be bleached or colored, however the underlying essence of “hair-ness” does not change. It is still the same hair before and after the hair color was altered. The change being made to the hair does not change the overall essence of the hair. A substantial change, on the other hand, does change the essence of the subject making it something completely different than before. Thus the subject becomes a new subject.

    Take the sperm and the egg. The sperm and egg alone cannot grow a fully functional human body. It is not until the sperm and egg meet that a substantial change happens and a human life begins. There is no other point in the development of the human body after conception that can be proven as the substantial change other than conception itself. Birth cannot be the substantial change that grants humanness because there is no difference between a baby one second before birth and one second after birth which could prove that a substantial change had happened. The same can be said for any other arbitrary milestone of development such as first steps or age 18 or age 21. All of those are accidental changes in which the overall essence of humanness is not changed. The only point where you can point to a visible and provable substantial change is conception. The sperm and the egg are not simply the sperm and the egg after the moment of conception and thanks to modern scientific equipment; you can see it happen before your very eyes.

    Therefore, it is philosophically impossible to claim that any group after conception is less than metaphysically human.

    THEREFORE: Biological Human life begins at conceptions the same as all other mammals


    2) Now we come to those who try and separate biological life from personhood. The problem with that line or argumentation is anytime you draw any line other than the inception of the child (at conception) you end up drawing a false line that can also be applied to people who are adults so either human life has intrinsic value or it doesn't....there is no in between. I will go through the most used false lines and show how each one is false.

    For these I use the acronym SLED

    Size
    Level of Development
    Environment
    dependency

    SIZE

    We will start with size: The unborn is clearly smaller than a born human. It’s hard to reason how a difference in size, though, disqualifies someone from being a person. A four year-old is smaller than a fourteen year-old. Can we kill her because she’s not as big as a teenager? No, because a human being’s value is not based on their size. She’s still equally a person even though she differs in that characteristic. In the same way, the unborn is smaller than a four year-old. If we can’t kill the four-year old because she’s smaller, then we can’t kill the unborn because she’s smaller either.

    You say that A is big and B is small. It is size then: The larger having the right to kill the smaller. Take care. By this rule you are to be victim to the first person you meet with a larger body than your own.

    LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT

    The unborn is also less developed than a born human being. How does this fact, though, disqualify the unborn from personhood? A four year-old girl can’t bear children because her reproductive system is less developed than a fourteen year-old girl. That doesn’t disqualify her from personhood. She is still as equally valuable as a child-bearing teen. The unborn is also less developed than the four year-old. Therefore, we can’t disqualify her from personhood for the same reason we can’t disqualify the four year-old. Both are merely less developed than older human beings.

    You do not mean size exactly? -You mean that born human persons are developmentally the superiors of the pre-born and therefore have the right to kill the pre-born? Take care again. By this rule you are to be victim to the first person you meet who is more developed in his mind and body than your own.

    ENVIRONMENT

    The unborn is located in a different environment than a born human. How does your location, though, affect your value? Can changing your environment alter your status as a person? Where you are has no bearing on who you are. An astronaut who spacewalks in orbit is in a radically different environment than a person on the planet. No one could reasonably deny his personhood simply because he’s in a different location. Scuba divers who swim under water and spelunkers who crawl through caves are equally as valuable as humans who ride in hot-air balloons. If changing your environment can’t change your fundamental status, then being inside or outside a uterus can’t be relevant either. How could a 7-inch journey through the birth canal magically transform a value-less human into a valuable person? Nothing has changed except their location.

    The problem is that you cannot metaphysically show how traveling out the birth canal of a woman magically bestows personhood. There is no substantial change between 1 second before birth and 1 second after birth. This is also appealing to the false line of "ENVIRONMENT" because whether inside or outside the womb, the essence of being a human being has not changed and thus it is logically false to claim that being outside the womb magically bestows more rights than someone inside the womb.

    While birth does not violate its own definitions or expand beyond the definitions, birth is an arbitrary point. There is no objective change just before birth to just after birth that can be used as a significant reason to have personhood bestowed upon you that was not present before. It is no more arbitrary than using age 18 or age 21. Being such, I could easily argue that personhood begins at age 18 or 21 thus changing infanticide, homicide against children and overall child abuse legal.

    DEGREE OF DEPENDENCY

    The unborn is dependent upon the mother’s body for nutrition and a proper environment. It’s hard to see, though, how depending upon another person disqualifies you from being a person. Newborns and toddlers still depend upon their parents to provide nutrition and a safe environment. Indeed, some third-world countries require children to be breast fed because formula is not available. Can a mother kill her newborn son because he depends on her body for nutrition? Or, imagine you alone witnessed a toddler fall into a swimming pool. Would you be justified in declaring him not valuable simply because he depended on you for his survival? Of course not! Since the unborn depends on his mother in the same way, it’s not reasonable to disqualify his value either. Notice that although toddler and teens differ from each other in the four SLED categories, we don’t disqualify toddlers from personhood. Since born and unborn humans differ in exactly the same ways, we can’t disqualify the unborn from personhood either. You could do the same for (First Breath) by asking the person if I could kill him/her when he/she is holding his/her breath........or mental ability to think/be aware by asking the person if I can kill him/her when he/she is not thinking or asleep. In each instance, I can take their definition and apply it to a born human being thus showing the weakness of the argument (or lack thereof).

    You do not mean environment/location exactly? -You mean that the pre-born are not as viable because they are still dependent on the mother and the womb and therefore have the right to kill the pre-born? Take care even still. By this rule you are to be victim to the first person whose independence is higher than your own.

    THEREFORE: There is no other place other than conception that can be the metaphysical beginning of personhood

    AUTONOMY?

    If the baby is biologically and metaphysically a unique and separate human being from the mother (which is scientifically and metaphysically proven), therefore, it is the killing of another human being by definition. If that is true, then how can one morally excuse the killing of another human being outside of reasonable self defense?

    One way would be to claim that abortion was an act of “self defense” against an invasive baby. I will show however, why such a claim is ridiculous and philosophically/intellectually dishonest. Any attempt to claim that the woman’s autonomy is being “violated by the presence of the baby in the womb blatantly ignores the causality of how that baby got there.

    THE BABY DID NOT;

    a) Suddenly or magically pop into existence. That is metaphysically impossible
    Or
    b) The baby did not of his/her own free will choose to enter the womb and thus violate the bodily autonomy of the mother. That is also impossible and a denial of how we know that conception and pregnancy occurs.

    The mother cannot claim that her autonomy was violated when it was her own freely chosen action of having sex that that caused pregnancy. It would be like throwing a rock at a glass window and then claiming that the rock was violating your house by breaking the window. I threw the rock and that is why the rock broke the window. Such an argument denies basic causality and thus is intellectually dishonest.

    BUT WHAT ABOUT RAPE YOU SAY?

    Yes……I cannot make the same causality argument in rape because the woman was not a willing participant in the sex which caused the pregnancy. Even so…there is still a logical problem with making this objection to my argument…..
    Rape only makes up 1% or less of all cases of abortion. To bring up rape as an argument for abortion when rape/incest only makes up 1% or less of all abortions is the logical fallacy of composition (aka using what is true about a http://part….in this case 1% of 60 million abortions…..in order to make the same statement about the whole……..99% of abortions that are not rape/incest related). The only way to NOT fall into the intellectually dishonest contradiction and fallacy of using the extreme minority of rape/incest in order to justify abortion as a whole is to admit that abortion cannot be justified with the autonomy argument outside of rape and incest.

    So let's talk about autonomy, abortion and rape/incest

    They would use the objection of the “Famous Violinist” analogy where a person finds themselves hooked up to a famous violinist (against your will) in order to save the life of said violinist. This argument highlights that regardless of whether or not it saves the life of the violinist, it violates my rights to refuse. The problem with this argument is that even though the woman was violated by the rapist, the argument is still misappropriating the violation of the rapist on the woman to the baby who is innocent regardless of how he/she was conceived. Plus, any attempt to say that the woman has a right to remove the baby (even if the intention is not to kill the baby) is like saying that I have a right to eject a stowaway in my plane after I have taken off. Yes that action alone does not directly kill the person, but if I threw that stowaway out of my plane at 30,000 feet, I would be in denial if I said that I did not know that the fall would kill him. The same goes with babies. Saying that a woman has a right to eject the baby from the womb at younger than 20-24 weeks would most assuredly kill the baby and even after 25 weeks, it is not a sure thing that a prematurely born baby would survive even with our new and updated technology in NICU wards.

    A better analogy to use would “The Alpine Hut” analogy which goes something like this………

    A woman wakes up trapped in a hut in the alps. It is not the fault of the woman that she is there and it is not the choice of the woman to be there. In the hut she finds that there is a newborn who needs to be fed and cared for. In searching the house, you find that there is an ample supply of food and the woman happens to be lactating anyway. It would be wrong for the woman just to ignore the baby despite the fact that caring for the baby does not lessen her ability to survive until the police finally come and rescue her along with the baby. What person upon finding the alpine hut along with the living woman and a dead baby would not fault the woman for refusing to take care of the baby despite the fact that there was plenty of food and nursing the baby does not diminish the amount of food available for the mother? Even though the woman was violated by the rapist, the argument is still misappropriating the violation of the rapist on the woman to the baby who is innocent regardless of how he/she was conceived AND it is flawed to argue for a woman’s right to eject the baby while ignoring the death sentence that it would give much like ejecting my stowaway at 30,000 feet or the woman in the alpine hut refusing to feed the child at no person harm to herself (other than slight inconvenience).

    THEREFORE the argument is logically flawed.

    THEREFORE It is impossible to not give humans from conception the same basic rights of personhood as all other human beings first of most is the right to life.
  • Akanthinos
    1k
    First TPF post is a textwall against abortion.

    That's a paddling.
  • LostThomist
    46
    With all due respect.....that is not really responding philosophically or academically, but rather using a bizarre standard for writing on a website that is all about philosophy (which often requires lengthy definitions and explanations)

    Have you ever read other works of the philosophers?
  • LostThomist
    46
    I have not quote finished publishing the popup book version yet. I will tell you when I have finished it. :P
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Welcome to the forum, LT. It's good to have you. I agree completely with your argument and appreciate the lucidity with which you presented it. :up:
  • LostThomist
    46
    Thanks for the warm welcome and your thoughts on my philosophical work :) :) :)
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    BUT WHAT ABOUT RAPE YOU SAY?

    Yes……I cannot make the same causality argument in rape because the woman was not a willing participant in the sex which caused the pregnancy.
    LostThomist

    Here I might add that two wrongs don't make a right. If abortion is intrinsically immoral, then rape is not a legitimate exception. To punish the innocent for crimes it never committed (in this case, rape, but the same logic would apply to incest) is unjust.

    The only possibly legitimate exception is when the life of the mother is threatened. There, the principle of double effect becomes relevant, so that if the child is killed in an attempt to save the life of the mother without intending to harm the child, the abortion in that case is morally permissible.
  • LostThomist
    46
    Correct......and I agree.......and I said as much below that when I talk about the analogies and the wrong of the rape not being used as an excuse for a second wrong (the killing of the child in the womb)
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Yes, I see that now.
  • LostThomist
    46
    The only possibly legitimate exception is when the life of the mother is threatened. There, the principle of double effect becomes relevant, so that if the child is killed in an attempt to save the life of the mother without intending to harm the child, the abortion in that case is morally permissible.Thorongil

    I guess it would depend on what you mean by "life of the mother being threatened" since that phrase has been used rather loosely.

    I would bring a few things to mind on that question......


    1) An abortion especially if it is late term would take 3 days in preparation just to dilate the cervix enough for the procedure.

    If a woman did have complications during a pregnancy that caused her to fall ill or have an impending health risk that could or is turning deadly, would a woman really wait 3 days to have an abortion in an abortion “clinic” or would she go to the emergency room of a hospital? ………of course she would.

    2) Except for ectopic pregnancies, most medical problems for the mother during her pregnancy happen in the third trimester and are usually after the baby is able to be taken out of the womb by C-section and in many cases survive. And even in the case of ectopic pregnancies, you would never go to an abortion clinic to resolve that. An abortion would not change the ectopic pregnancy.

    For such a problem, you would have to go to a hospital where they would remove the entire fallopian tube. Also, in those medical cases where there was an issue that threatened the health of the mother, having a D&E abortion would be equally as dangerous because it would not remove the true threat to the mother and the true cause of her symptoms.

    Quite the contrary, having an abortion would worsen symptoms because it would exacerbate the true cause of her symptoms (which is NOT the baby in the womb but rather another issue for which pregnancy triggers the symptoms).

    In cases of TRUE health risks to the mother (and I mean true health risks not just saying “health risks” as a catch all loophole) I would use the double effect rule. What I mean by “double effect” is that the intention has to be to save the mother and NOT to directly end the life of the baby. So what does that look like? Use the example of an ectopic pregnancy.

    In such a case, the intention of the doctor would be to remove the philopian tube in which the newly conceived baby (fertilized egg) is attached. If the goal of the operation was to scrape out the newly conceived baby (fertilized egg itself, it would be immoral because the direct intention is to kill the newly conceived baby.

    The other example I would use (courtesy of Ben Shapiro) would be the pregnant woman who has cancer. In her case the intention of the course of treatment (in this case chemotherapy) is to treat the cancer…….of which an indirect result is a miscarriage. I the direct reason was to cause a miscarriage, it would not be acceptable. Now how many babies do you think are able to survive outside the womb in the known cases where a health risk happened in a pregnancy?

    The success rate of the hospital to save both the baby and the mother is extremely high. Most of all, complications in pregnancies are rare and many of them arise later in pregnancy. PLUS, the percentage where there is a medical complication in a pregnancy is so low in the United States that it would not even reach 1 percent.

    Thus by using this example as a case for not making abortion illegal is bad logic. You are using a VERY obscure exemption that does not affect the main topic because the example is so rare. Such an argument is logically flawed and and fails to address an argument for the much larger case for abortion outside of extremely rare medical emergencies.
  • Moliere
    4k
    it is philosophically impossible to claim that any group after conception is less than metaphysically human.

    THEREFORE: Biological Human life begins at conceptions the same as all other mammals
    LostThomist

    How does you first premise connect to your second one? You begin by saying

    For the purpose of a clear argument I will (for the time being) separate being biologically human from any concept of personhood. In doing so it is undeniable to say that biological human life begins at conception.LostThomist

    And then move into your metaphysical argument. But the metaphysical argument isn't connected to this beginning or your end. It doesn't argue that biological human life begins at conception.

    The sperm and egg alone cannot grow a fully functional human body with free will. It is not until the sperm and egg meet that a substantial change happens and a human life begins. There is no other point in the development of the human body after conception that can be proven as the substantial change other than conception itself.LostThomist

    And, furthermore, you beg the question here by saying conception is the substantial change that happens where human life begins, even within your metaphysical argument. You go on to posit other possible places or reasons in order to argue against them -- but you don't argue for this.

    Importantly: The sperm and the egg cannot grow a fully functional human body (not sure what free will has to do with this) without the mother. That's just a fact. It's not like conception is any more magical than any of the other points which you argue against.

    I'd say that none of them magically make a human being -- that there simply is no point along the chain of events that magically makes a human being human.
  • LostThomist
    46


    1) The point of mentioning the metaphysical argument for biologically human life beginning at conception is to disprove any future argument which denies the humanity as a basis for abortion being moral.

    Then.....I go on to argue against those who separate biological humanness from personhood

    2) The free will part was a typo....you are right to say that free will has nothing to do with it. Some parts of this I wrote at odd hours and may have been less coherent than I would have liked to be.

    I think what I meant to say.........is that the egg alone or the sperm alone cannot on their own produce a human being.
  • LostThomist
    46
    And, furthermore, you beg the question here by saying conception is the substantial change that happens where human life begins, even within your metaphysical argument.Moliere

    Ok............I will give that to you. I mostly used that example because I could not think of another good example of substantial change. If I used another example other than the one I was trying to prove, it would tighten up the argument.
  • LostThomist
    46
    That's just a fact. It's not like conception is any more magical than any of the other points which you argue against.

    I'd say that none of them magically make a human being -- that there simply is no point along the chain of events that magically makes a human being human.
    Moliere

    I use the word "magically" somewhat sarcastically........but what I mean by that is that...........the other places to use as the starting point for life would make it seem like a baby just popped into existence, whereas with conception you can see how it came about and thus proves itself more valid as an explanation.

    Differentiating "hand waving" as an explanation for things from being able to show the causality
  • Akanthinos
    1k
    With all due respect.....that is not really responding philosophically or academically, but rather using a bizarre standard for writing on a website that is all about philosophy (which often requires lengthy definitions and explanations)LostThomist

    You can cut down the pedant's speech. Philosophy doesn't require that we speak through a chicken's anus (now I doubt this idiom is going to translate). And it's traditional to introduce oneself before launching into an endless moralizing tirade. That was all I meant to convey.

    "Read other works of the philosophers"...? Are you often this condescending.
  • LostThomist
    46
    You can cut down the pedant's speech. Philosophy doesn't require that we speak through a chicken's anus (now I doubt this idiom is going to translate).Akanthinos

    Then I would be accused of not defining my terms properly.

    I would rather take the former accusation than the latter.
  • LostThomist
    46
    "Read other works of the philosophers"...? Are you often this condescending.Akanthinos

    Not my intention..........My point being that every other philosophical work is long, requires things to be defined and is seldom brief.............especially Heidegger.
  • LostThomist
    46
    And it's traditional to introduce oneself before launching into an endless moralizing tirade.Akanthinos

    1) Hello. I am Lost Thomist

    2) That is rather condescending yourself and insulting to a work of philosophical thought for which I have worked hard to create. I demand an apology.
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    Hello. Well done for acknowledging that it is possible to believe that human life begins at conception but personhood does not. That is the position of some of the more sophisticated philosophers that argue about the permissibility of abortion, such as Peter Singer.

    Unfortunately, you did not address the arguments made by Singer and others that we cannot reasonably call an embryo a person. Their argument is essentially that it is a much less significant harm to kill an organism that has no well-developed consciousness, self-awareness, sense of purpose or of the future, than one that does. The section labelled 'LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT' could have addressed this, but did not do so. The only part that comes close to it is the bit about the super-intelligent aliens killing us. But that would not apply if the threshold for personhood were to be set at some absolute minimum level rather than at a level that is relative to the sophistication of the being that is thinking of doing the killing. I believe the usual utilitarian arguments for permissibility of abortion are based on setting absolute minimum levels for personhood, not relative levels.

    But having said that, I do not necessarily disagree that, if super-intelligent aliens were to come to Earth, it would be fair enough for them to kill and eat us. It seems only fair, given how ready humans are to kill and eat other mammals just because they are not as sophisticated as we are.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    What I mean by “double effect” is that the intention has to be to save the mother and NOT to directly end the life of the baby.LostThomist

    Exactly.

    Thus by using this example as a case for not making abortion illegal is bad logic. You are using a VERY obscure exemption that does not affect the main topic because the example is so rare.LostThomist

    Right. I don't use it as a case for making abortion legal. I'm assuming the "you" here is meant generally and is not directed at me.
  • LostThomist
    46
    ↪LostThomist Hello. Well done for acknowledging that it is possible to believe that human life begins at conception but personhood does not. That is the position of some of the more sophisticated philosophers that argue about the permissibility of abortion, such as Peter Singer.

    Unfortunately, you did not address the arguments made by Singer and others that we cannot reasonably call an embryo a person. Their argument is essentially that it is a much less significant harm to kill an organism that has no well-developed consciousness, self-awareness, sense of purpose or of the future, than one that does. The section labelled 'LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT' could have addressed this, but did not do so. The only part that comes close to it is the bit about the super-intelligent aliens killing us. But that would not apply if the threshold for personhood were to be set at some absolute minimum level rather than at a level that is relative to the sophistication of the being that is thinking of doing the killing. I believe the usual utilitarian arguments for permissibility of abortion are based on setting absolute minimum levels for personhood, not relative levels.

    But having said that, I do not necessarily disagree that, if super-intelligent aliens were to come to Earth, it would be fair enough for them to kill and eat us. It seems only fair, given how ready humans are to kill and eat other mammals just because they are not as sophisticated as we are.
    andrewk

    1) I would hardly call Singer a philosopher much less sophisticated.

    2)
    You do not mean development exactly? -You mean that born human persons have an intellect and a consciousness that is higher than the pre-born and therefore you have the right to kill the pre-born? Take care yet again. By this rule you are to be victim to the first person who has an intellect and a consciousness that is higher than your own.


    So if you are in a coma from which you may awake........can I stab you?
  • LostThomist
    46
    Right. I don't use it as a case for making abortion legal. I'm assuming the "you" here is meant generally and is not directed at me.Thorongil

    Sorry yes.....I wrote this all out before hand (in fact I have been working on this for years).......The "You" is not talking to you personally but rather talking to my imaginary opponent who disagrees with me.
  • LostThomist
    46


    3) Even Singer's argument does not explain my question of how there could possibly be a "partly person" with only partial rights.

    Either there the baby in the womb is a person with rights or he/she is not. To say that somehow it would be moral to kill the baby in the womb because of lesser intelligence or intellect or awareness would (by the same logic) excuse the murder of the mentally handicapped, physically handicapped or anyone of lesser intelligence than the speaker.

    Singer lacks any true argument other than to argue that some humans are morally superior to other and thus deserve to live over them.

    *cue to short man with a small black mustache raising his arm out straight and slightly raised in front of him*
  • T Clark
    13k
    That is rather condescending yourself and insulting to a work of philosophical thought for which I have worked hard to create. I demand an apology.LostThomist

    Welcome to the forum. In order to hang around here, especially if you plan to support unpopular ideas, it's best if you prepare to be treated un-civilly. Actually, prepare to be treated un-civilly no matter what ideas you support. It's a good forum and fairly aggressive moderation keeps things from getting crazy, but a lot of leeway is given for personal expression.
  • LostThomist
    46
    Welcome to the forum. In order to hang around here, especially if you plan to support unpopular ideas, it's best if you prepare to be treated un-civilly. Actually, prepare to be treated un-civilly no matter what ideas you support.T Clark

    Bullshit. I treated him with professional respect and I expect the same........in fact the forum rules as they are written expect the same.
  • T Clark
    13k
    In doing so it is undeniable to say that biological human life begins at conception.LostThomist

    Well, no. It's not undeniable. I don't consider eight cells human life. I think abortion is a bad method of birth control. It should be avoided, but I believe the pregnant women should make the decision. What you call your "scientific claim" is nothing more than a restatement of the common claim that life begins at conception. It's a definition, not a fact. It's your definition, not mine.

    THEREFORE It is impossible to not give humans from conception the same basic rights of personhood as all other human beings first of most is the right to life.LostThomist

    No.

    Do you propose making abortion illegal? If so, the question I always ask is whether you believe in allowing free access to non-abortive birth control. If not, you have no credibility in my opinion.
  • T Clark
    13k
    Bullshit. I treated him with professional respect and I expect the same........in fact the forum rules as they are written expect the same.LostThomist

    Nonetheless, that's the way things work here. As I said, the forum rules are enforced with a lot of leeway. I endorse that, although I try, with reasonable but not perfect success, to be respectful.
  • LostThomist
    46
    Well, no. It's not undeniable. I don't consider 8 cells human life.T Clark


    EXCEPT......as I point out.......there is a difference between 8 random cells and the 8 cells not long after conception. Such a comparison is ignoring the epistemological difference between the parts and the whole.

    There is an epistemological difference between a human baby in the womb and a finger that I lost in a workshop accident.

    Even if John lose that finger to a buzz-saw, John still retain my John-ness.....likewise just because the finger was a part of john does not make the finger a whole person.

    Or

    Just because I take a branch from a tree, does not mean that the branch becomes a tree

    Likewise, just because I took away one branch from the tree, does not mean that the tree looses its tree-ness
  • LostThomist
    46
    What you call your "scientific claim" is nothing more than a restatement of the common claim that life begins at conception. It's a definition, not a fact. It's your definition, not mine.

    Ok........so you deny my scientific claim (much like denying the earth is round)

    But no matter......I also showed using metaphysics that human life (putting aside the question of personhood) begins at conception.

    Are you going to also deny metaphysics?

    That leaves you with no platform to stand on other than claiming that my reality is different than your reality.....a claim that is neither philosophical, scientific or based on objective facts.
  • T Clark
    13k
    Just because I take a branch from a tree, does not mean that the branch becomes a tree

    Likewise, just because I took away one branch from the tree, does not mean that the tree looses its tree-ness
    LostThomist

    And, as I said, in my opinion eight cells is not a tree.

    A theme I come back to in a lot of my posts - metaphysics is not a matter of true or false, it is a matter of useful or not useful. I don't find your way of looking at this useful or convincing.
  • LostThomist
    46
    And, as I said, in my opinion eight cells is not a tree.T Clark

    You completely missed the point.

    To simply compare any 8 cells with the 8 cells in a developing human is an illogical comparison because any 8 skin cells cannot develop into a whole human body.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment