[Morality Games]

Your whole argument is very semantics driven, which is difficult to deal with and not really meaningful.

You seem to believe that we do not exist until we hit the air.

I don't doubt fetuses exist, but all of the pertinent aspects of being associated with humans are not part of their existence.

Unborns exist, and the offspring of two human beings can be nothing other than a human being.

No, the immediate offspring (if the term offspring is even applicable here) of two humans is a clump of cells. There is an ontological difference between a clump of cells and a nervous system driven entity. That is to say, there is a physical difference, just as there is a physical difference between a thumb and a pink, a cardboard box and a television set, and so on.

Hence, why you have bad metaphysics.

If you feel that we are something other than human beings from the time we are concieved, I welcome you to provide some credible science that suggests that the offspring of two human beings may be something other than a human being.

You need to lighten up Francis. Your argument has little to do with science, and everything to do with a gross misapplication of language and logic.

I can certainly provide all manner of credible science that states explicitly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved.

Science has a noted disregard for language, so whether a fetus is called human or not is of little scientific significance -- either/or passes in most scientific circles. That is why the idea of presenting credible scientific evidence that we are human beings from the time we are conceived is nonsensical.

What science can do is note the difference between a fetus and a nervous system driven entity, which is not to your advantage.

The underlying premise of your argument seems to be that non humans can turn into human beings. Such a change woud require a radical change in our essential nature at some point.

We have no 'essential' nature -- the word 'essential' when used to describe human beings nowadays refers to ideas concerning us which show a high degree of success in qualifying the characteristics of those of us going under that term.

Such a premise presents an insurmoutable logical problem however. If the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature.

Essentialism is de funct. Almost any contemporary philosopher could tell you that. The logic of essentialism failed to account for actuality and was disregarded. There are a few 'neo-essentialists', but their logic operates in terms very different from yours.

The only insurmountable logical problem here is how essentialism can be true.

It stands to reason that if the unborn naturally initiates the change, it must be in its nature from the beginning. If it is in its nature, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life.

Stands to everything but reason to think this way, partially because the logic is super circular. Can you explain exactly where in the being the features that will appear later in life are lurking right now? If not, there is nothing scientific about your claims.

Accepted evidence suggests that human children don't even become self aware until sometime between 8 and 18 months of age and the definition of sapient is to have wisdom and exhibit sound judgement. Newborns certainly aren't sapient and neither are most teenagers, and ditto for a large number of adults. Are you really arguing that we are not human beings until we are sapient?

From a physicalist perspective, the essence of my argument has always been there is an ontological (metaphysical) difference between a non-existent nervous system and an existent nervous system, and that a nervous system performs all the functions we associate with the abstract idea 'human being'.

Your argument is weak. Very weak. Any argument that suggests a radical change in our essential nature at any point in our life is going to require some sound science to back it up. We both know that such sound science will not be forthcoming because no credible scientist would suggest that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

Most scientists would steer clear of an essentialist thinker who believes in something that isn't tangibly real. Most.

Funny since it is you who is suggesting that non humans metamorphose into human beings by some as yet undescribed process. If you are arguing that we undergo some metamorphosis that changes our essential nature, I am afraid that I am going to see some credible and valid science to support such a wild claim.

Claiming humans have an essential nature is a wild claim (at least it is these days), and does not sit easily with science (which is why it has not survived in science-driven analytical philosophy).

So now you are trying to compare the dead to the living? Your argument gets weaker all the time. If you find that you must attempt to draw an analogy between a thriving, perfectly healthy being and one who is dead and cremated, you should recognize that your argument is failing.

Can you explain your interpretation of the logic of my text?

Accepted evidence suggests that human children don't even become self aware until sometime between 8 and 18 months of age and the definition of sapient is to have wisdom and exhibit sound judgement. Newborns certainly aren't sapient and neither are most teenagers, and ditto for a large number of adults. Are you really arguing that we are not human beings until we are sapient?

As a non-essentialist, I don't think there exists in actuality any kind of line between different stages of being. Lines, firm or weak, exist only in the mind. The question here is whether or not we should draw a firm or weak line between a nervous system driven entity and a fetus. You are arguing for a weak line, but in addition, you are arguing (as an essentialist) that this line is intrinsically part of the nature of actuality, as opposed to me, who is arguing (as a non-essentialist) that the lines are drawn from imperfect observations of actuality in order to help us cope with it. Actuality in-itself is perfectly seamless and without any cracks, divisions, or lines.

Also, sapience is a relative term meant to differentiate humans from other animals -- it designates that we are capable of certain mental activities that they are not. Every nervous-system driven entity that qualifies as a 'human' is sapient in comparison to, say, a squirrel.

As for the status of newborns: they have existent and active nervous systems, which puts them in the play for rights. Whether or not this system is functional enough for the emergence of ego is debatable, but the aspect of being which allows for ego is present.

In advance, you say, "So potentiality does matter!"

Yes, but in a discussion of rights, potentiality is only pertinent in so far as the nervous system is already in existence -- if that existence is cut off before the development of a nervous system, the object which allowed for discussion of rights to be pertinent never existed.