Replies

OK, I appreciate your response. But please allow me to suggest that it's one thing to disagree with him on this and another entirely to call him a "false 'christian' Archbissect". I'm certain that we believers are called to demonstrate more unity in the face of disputable matters. And frankly we Christians tend to believe that far too many things are indisuputable.

Lest you think this issue is indisputable, let me tell you that I personally am not 100% convinced by your arguments. They are indeed intelligent and compelling but not watertight. The presence of 46 chromosomes does not necessarily connote identity. After all, if someone takes a biopsy of living tissue, the cells taken do not immediately die, and they all have my 46 chromosomes---and nobody would claim that they have the rights of an individual. Now obviously they will die momentarily from lack of nourishment, but so would a zygote forcibly removed from implantation, so in that sense the two are not appreciably different.

I'm sure you have a response for this---but my point is that this is an arguable issue. And between Christians we have to be more gracious.

After all, if someone takes a biopsy of living tissue, the cells taken do not immediately die, and they all have my 46 chromosomes---and nobody would claim that they have the rights of an individual.

Because, as they are, those cells would not grow into an individual, even if they were kept alive.

You offered, as a means to defend your effort to dehuamnize the earliest ages along an individual's lifetime continuum for whatever reason you may hold to, "... but so would a zygote forcibly removed from implantation ..." The zygote is the first cell formed at fusion of the chromosomes of male and female (in traditional reproduction); as soon as mitosis occurs, within hours there is a morula of sixteen cells and that is no longer a zygote; implantation doesn't happen until days later and several levels of stem cell cascade, and the embryo is - by the implantation age of twelve to fourteen days - already grown to a hundred or more cells moving along the methylation pathways that make the placental organ and the main body of the individual to be used upon exiting the womb.

As to the Aussie Arch, I stand by my characterization of him because his effort to dehumanize the earliest age of individual human beings so that he can lend credibility to the exploitation of human life for cannibalization is disgusting service to the great ghoul known as the father of lies, a murderer from the start. I'll choose how to view that man based on his words and actions, thank you.

You are confused about the nature of a human being - what he or she is. The cells from a biopsy are not capable of development from an embryo to a fetus and then a neonate and later a Freeper.
The zygote - including a theoretical cloned human zygote - is capable of that development unless he or she dies.