Cometh The Inquisitor
Well, conveniently, I did come up with a definition. You seem to have a problem to my definition, but have failed to come up with any solid counter-point/counter-definition (such as stating just why my definition is faulty, as opposed to questioning how I came to that conclusion).
Disproving the reasoning behind your definition is a completely valid way to disprove your argument. If you can't back it up, then it can be discarded.
Cometh The Inquisitor
Because, they are the best way of determining eligibility for rights that we have currently.
That's completely random. You're asserting that this definition is correct, then backing it up by saying that it's the "best way", but you're not getting into why.
You need to explain why your definition is valid. Without some sort of reasoning to back it up, it's completely useless.
Cometh The Inquisitor
Well, feti have their own individual DNA, being that they have both maternal and paternal genes. Cancer simply has a mutated strain of the original host's DNA, thus, it is not an individual.
Okay, earlier you said that a human is created when it becomes an individual on a genetic level. Apparently now you need to describe what "becoming an individual" entails. Why, exactly, does being mutated not count as becoming an individual, but having a combination of DNA (along with whatever mutations may crop up along the way) count?
Cometh The Inquisitor
Actually, the 'because it's the best thing we have' is a tried and true method of logic.
Except that you haven't proven that it's the best thing we have. You haven't supplied any reason for it to be considered valid at all. Your assertions have no more ground than if I claimed that people should be given their rights when they eat a cheeseburger.
