The part of my post you initially to was me responding to Brighteye who mentioned "potential". I just restated that. Either way, it doesn't matter, because either you're talking about what is, in which case an embryo is a human whilst a skin cell isn't, or you're talking about "potential", in which case an embryo has the "potential" to become a human left alone to develop (if you don't perceive it to be one already) while a skin cell does not. Either way, you arrive at the same conclusion.
I assume that this has been answered already, but if you haven't seen someone reply, let me know.
There is no environment which will turn a skin cell into a baby. None, what-so-ever, and you are more than welcome to prove me wrong (in case you're wondering, the most you can do is take an adult stem cell and, for lack of a better word, "revert" it back to the embryonic phase). And, to repeat myself again, a skin cell is a somatic cell. A somatic cell is literally any cell which comprises the body, aside from germ(line) cells. They are part of the individual, not the individual within themselves.
Now you're talking practical ability. There almost certainly is an environment which will turn any defined cell into a person, but we don't know what it is for most cells.
Hardly. You've claimed, on more than one occassion, that the unborn at all stages aren't humans as the term "human" has moral meaning. This is false and forever will be false. No point was made for you, but a point was made against you.
I have claimed that in so far as the word human has moral meaning, things that are not sentient are not human. I have done this in ways including attempting to define my usage of the word 'human' as being the biological meaning of the general usage, and 'a human' as being the moral meaning.
Most people let context show which they mean, and hence it is possible to claim that embryos are not human because in that context the meaning meant is the moral meaning.
When you call such people hypocritical you are misinterpreting their meaning. 'Proving' them wrong with quotations from embryologists about what you have quite convincingly shown to be an accepted biological meaning does not prove them wrong at all. It merely draws attention to multiple meanings of the word.
Answer me this: how can the word "human" only have a biological meaning in philosophy, yet human simultaneously be a philosophical question? How can philosophy, in which the word "human" only has a biological meaning, require personhood, as that would mean that the word "human" doesn't only have a biological meaning, but something beyond that. Huh? Huh??? Huh?!?!?!
Playing with my various contrasting attempts to make the point in different ways doesn't win me round. If you wish me to rephrase with the most recent definitions:
Abortion hinges on defining personhood.
Personhood is a philosophical issue.
When considering this issue, 'human' has only biological meaning.
In general speech, 'human' frequently substitutes for 'person'.
'Human' therefore has two meanings.
I initially started using it in both contexts, before attempting to split the two meanings.
Therefore I initially, along with most people, framed the philosophical issue as 'defining what it is to be human'.
You have defined what it is to be human quite adequately, but only for the biological meaning, which is the philosophical usage of the word.
You have not defined personhood, except to assume that it is the same as being human (biologically). It seems to me, therefore, that you are confusing your terms, by not recognising the difference between the biological meaning of 'human' and philosophical personhood, which in general speech are covered by the same word: 'human'.
I have consistently, and increasingly clearly, tried to question the assumption that these are the same. You have taken every opportunity to avoid addressing this point, which leads me to believe either that you simply do not understand it, or that you are not interested in truly engaging in debate, which would lead you to address people's points, but that you want to win political and rhetorical points in an arena where such things are not possible. That you have consistently been rude, as though you hoped to bully me away from a discussion rather than persuade me or reason with what I have said, suggests too heavy a reliance on feelings, rather than thought.
You've backtracked and contradicted yourself left and right. I don't understand how you don't see this.
What you call backtracking I call attempting a different way of making the same points, which I have reiterated here. I initially responded to your suggestion that people cannot call an embryo human and without rights. I have made the point a number of times that this is perfectly possible, due to differences between general, biological and philosophical usage of the word. The point remains.
Nor, coincidentally, does re-phrasing indicate a bad position. If two people have never thought about things before, and engage in discussion, both might suggest things that they have to rephrase. The final position could well be stronger. A position with the same weaknesses which is merely repeated without adjustments might win political debate, but hasn't got anywhere good in sensible debate.
