your mind is dependent on how it develops inside the womb. your dna "instructs" what cells go well and will operate its formation (in most basic terms). you could have been born w/o a brain, or w/ limited cognitive response. genetics and your condition within the womb determines the outcome.
I knew someone who was dead for 15 minutes. brain dead, heart not beating, etc. I met him in a karate class years after his motorcycle collision.
even a dead person is still human, just a dead human/person. this does not change an organism's species. it only changes word tense.
there is a black and white definition of
human being.
you're thinking of humanity or human nature which is philosophical. science spells out the animal kingdom
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Genusbiology even covers the entire development stage of our human species:
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human_developmentin order to be apart of the development stage, one must be human. must be apart of our species. the embryo is as is the fetus.
you just said, "it is an opinion". followed by "it is not an opinion". make up your mind!
the term human being refers only to homo sapiens and our ancient relatives of the same biological family. no one is excluded just because of how they look or how far along they have developed.
as for the human embryo vs just fertilized egg, no these two are not the exact same, other than in the sense that they are human. they are of the same species as the parents. or do you disagree?
Ad hominem, you were attacking the people behind the web site. you can't argue it, just admit it.
1.I never claimed that I was not or am not wrong because you can not provide a response. I am saying that I can not agree with people who can't even explain their own position. Was this not an argument? part of an argument is that you present your claim, and your support. I can remember only one other person on this thread doing so who was actually against my position.
I also said I was correct because I am merely pointing out what biology states. This is not
just my opinion.
2. how is being human subjective? were the nazi's not wrong for their genocide against the Jews? if being human is subjective, then they had all right in doing their actions. do you agree with them?
then explain why. how is the brain supposed to determine who is or is not human?
I fear you are not an architect and the blue print analogy is confusing you.
the blueprint analogy is only to explain what dna does or what dna is like in terms of how it influences our bodies. after that, the analogy pretty much stops. why? because it is not the exact same thing.
so I never stated that dna was a human being just like real blueprints are not buildings. I stated that dna determines you to be a human or not human.
kind of like how blueprints determine a building to be a house or a skyscraper.
does that make sense?