OH MY GOD THE FISKING; you are being obnoxious on purpose AGAIN. :doh Why the hell would anyone talk to you? Why am I bothering?
We have
**proof** that even specialized cells in a multicelled animal body are each one still organisms --
otherwise it would be impossible to grow meat in a Petri dish.
Stupidity. You take the possibility of using artificial processes to reverse specialization and draw all the wrong conclusions.
We are only single-celled organisms during one brief stage of life, the very first one. Several of your pro-abort peers here insipidly and stupidly says that this cell is not an organism because it is a single cell; all you have done is gone to the opposite, equally ridiculous extreme, stating that every cell is its own organism, even after specialization. ...
I assumed at this point you'd bring up twins. Again, a special case. Not artificial, not usually, but an interesting exception. One I am aware of, of course, but it doesn't change the rule or the definition.
AND EACH SUCH CELL IS STILL AN ORGANISM. For proof of that, remember you could in theory separate that first pair of cells, and they could eventually yield identical twins. (Normally
any natural separation happens at a much later point, but in theory the separation could be done early.)
If twinning occurs, then two genetically identical organisms have been created from one. This is something that can naturally happen based on the lack of specialization of those cells. Biology is fascinating stuff; it's why I spent so much time studying it.
The bodies of both twins are two organisms, not over 6 trillion ones (although obviously each body
contains plenty of bacteria, and THOSE are single-celled organisms). Again, you are drawing ridiculous conclusions.
MORE FALSE THAN TRUE. Because the existence of those species makes it extremely important to define "person" accurately, such that no type of person, anywhere in the Universe, gets excluded from that definition.
Again, person means
nothing inherently, it is a legal construct. Currently it only extends to born humans, but it does not realistically extend to all born humans in all legal jurisdictions in the sense that many nation states fail to protect the life, liberty, and property of born human beings against aggression or actively violate them.
I know you think you qualify your argument by making links. This is a good example of how in reality all you do is make links for making links' sake. The possibility of dying or being killed is part of the human condition or indeed just being a living organism in general. It does not logically follow.
Why is it you and your peers assume that we who believe in natural rights somehow think they are a magical barrier that prevents harm? From what could you draw such an inane conclusion?
A right is not a magical prevention; a right such as our right to life or our right to property is why we band together and make governments to pass laws in the first place, to protect these rights against aggression that can happen.
The prospect of the end of the world or extinction of our species has nothing to do with that. Every individual organism in our species will still have a natural and unalienable right to its life such that killing him or her in aggression is inviolably wrong, warranting punishment and removal from civilization, permanent or otherwise.
YOU ARE DESCRIBING THOSE WHO DENY OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE FACTS IN PURSUIT OF AN AGENDA.
"Person" doesn't inherently involve "OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE FACTS," it merely involves law created by authorities, be they chosen or take control through force of arms.
Folks abducted from Africa, put on boats, sold in markets, and worked until the day they died picking cotton for someone else were NOT people. Scientifically human beings from the moment of fertilization, yes, of course, but they were not legal people - they were considered property.
The slave traders and plantation owners weren't so much "pushing an agenda" and they didn't "deny facts." They wanted slaves, the legal status was such that they could, and they didn't care about the natural human right to liberty of "niggers," since they weren't - as they claimed over and over again - the equivalent of actual or real humans anyway.
This is of course directly analogous to you and your peers dogged insistence in denying the humanity of the unborn.
