It has a full homo sapiens genome from conception onwards.
Yes. genome. We agree on that. What I'm saying is that its not a full human yet. For that time and conception are needed.
Its just in an early developmental stage.
Just like an amount of brick is the early developmental stage of a building. But do you think that it is a building yet ? I don't think so, so let's not call a construction finished until its finished.
Biologically. If we go by biology, what you are saying is antiscientific drivel.
Nop. Still nop. I'm in fact very cartesian and close to pure scientific process here. I don't make a statement about individuality in early stages, I only make it when science says to us that its fair to make it: at the appearance of consciousness.
On the contrary, what you are doing is creating a narrative. A narrative where individuality can come depite the non existence of consciousness. Which is quite problematic on a scientific level and political level when we talk about the right of abortion.
You are still confusing this with philosophical personhood, as i already mentioned.
hmm nop. Like I told you, the one who is confusing science with philosophy here is you mate. You are putting the characteristic of individuality on something that doesn't have consciousness yet. And you create a narrative were the end of construction predate the appearance of the last building block.
In short you are describing the existence of a building before the end of its construction
The genom are the building block, they are not the construction. The construction is only finished when its finished.
Eh, imho its subjective and people can assing whatever value they want, just like bob assgning more value to animals if i got that right
Not really, the fact of saying that individuality appears at the emergence of consciousness is not a "subjective" statement, its the best description of a biological process we have yet. Its therefore an objective scientific observation.
Yes you are
Again, biology =/= philosophy.
Then stop using science to create false narrative.
A human zygote is a member of the species homo sapiens
Again no. its not an individual yet. You are again creating a false narrative, you are describing a building before the end of the construction. A member is a individual, a human zygot is a building bloc.
If you are fine with a human being in its earliest developmental stages being terminated because of the inconvenience of the mother (majority of cases) then great for you. Im also relatively fine with that.
I'm not. Simply because your sentence is wrong. Its not a human being yet. its just the building blocs of a human being. Again, you are arguing that a bunch of bricks should not be removed (because they are causing harm) because they are already a finished construction, when they are not.
You are building a false narrative using science. And that's something I kinda hate if you ask me.
A foetus is the early stages of a human, its not human yet. Therefore there is no reason to say that its human unless you want to give pro life and antiscience people reason to believe that we should take the rights of body owners from them.
This sounds like the same logic pro organ transplant folks use when they go on tangents about how brain dead humans are completely dead to justify cutting out their organs for profit.
This is a very bad comparison, we are talking here about a life form that is taking the life ressources of another body without consent. We are not talking here about organ transplant.
And their movements including facial movements are just rEfLeXEs and eLeCTriCaL SigNalS riiiiiiiight.
Yup. That's explained by science.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/brain-death/
Brain death implies the lost of consciousness and the impossibility of recovering. What you are talking about are the same reflexes the body of a cutted head chicken has.
Why would we instantly talk about all life forms? No thanks
Because the arguments of pro life is not "save human babies" its "save life"
What other life forms if not biological are you thinking of?
Biological meaning "that it has all the potential biological building bloc to create lifeform"
My point is just that the pro life crowd talks about the value of human life, not life in general.
I can hear that, but that's not what I hear from them. But this might be a problem of perception.
my bunny, what is unconscious life?!
Plants for example.
