Just using your own expression...I could have called your premise absurd and impractical...it's all the same rejection.
Then select a premise and explain why it's wrong. If you can't, then explain why the argument is faulty. If you can't, then you must grant the conclusion.
Where's your justification for concluding this with the individual?
A person is a certain kind of individual. "Person" is a term which denotes a substance, not an accident. It says "this thing."
A person is a member of a larger living whole, namely a culture, society or perhaps a congregation. Human societies, as well....exist as a yet smaller aspect of a larger, natural aggregation...and so on.
What constitutes a society..etc.?
So what? That's like saying that bricks are members of a larger whole, e.g., a house. Therefore, I need to know what a house is before I know what a brick is.
The moniker of "person" is not simply an abstraction, it's rather how one human individual exists (interaction) in relation to other individuals. Personage is an active, constant and contiguious relationship between sentient human individuals...it's as much what we do that defines us a persons. It's why our actions are morally germane to others; the acts of the individual are of importance to society writ large.
False. "Person" indicates a substance, i.e., "this thing of such and such a kind." It indicates a first actual reality, not a second actual reality. I.e., it indicates what something is, not what it does.
Incipient life, though replete with human DNA, simply cannot act in this capacity especially at the early stages of development.
You're confusing first and second actuality (being vs. doing).
Yes, namely my disembodied toe-nail, hair, dead skin, blood...each has copious amounts of human DNA, no less your sole qualification for personhood.
Those "things" aren't individuals.
Then your argument remains subject to that identical in-substantiality.
What?
