Then by that same distinction he would have no argument of cells he has no conscious control over being removed from his own body as those cells are not part of a conscious body. These arguments are always so superfluous and idiotic. You can not believe in biology and abortion congruently. The argument that a unicellular organism isn’t human or alive is the same as saying that all humans do not meet the requirements of being human because humans are empirically all unicellular organisms at birth. Should we allow child murder because they can’t procreate? Should we allow the murder of old people because of cognitive decline? Your argument is sad and born from extreme cognitive dissonance.
The argument for brain death requires proof of no recovery. Every fetus is exempt from this by the same standard you just defined. Again you have no rational argument by any philosophical or empirical metric.
Then by that same distinction he would have no argument of cells he has no conscious control over being removed from his own body as those cells are not part of a conscious body. These arguments are always so superfluous and idiotic. You can not believe in biology and abortion congruently. The argument that a unicellular organism isn’t human or alive is the same as saying that all humans do not meet the requirements of being human because humans are empirically all unicellular organisms at birth. Should we allow child murder because they can’t procreate? Should we allow the murder of old people because of cognitive decline? Your argument is sad and born from extreme cognitive dissonance.
The argument for brain death requires proof of no recovery. Every fetus is exempt from this by the same standard you just defined. Again you have no rational argument by any philosophical or empirical metric.