It is hard to understand.
Here's a thought experiment for your contemplation.
We know that matter is in a constant state of motion is it not? In the natural sciences, an entity's motion describes its nature -- its size, shape, color, state, etc?
If existence is dependent on an object's physical nature, then existence is in a constant state of flux from one moment to the next. No truth value can be discerned from an existence in flux.
But we know intuitively that that is not the case. You are the same person you are now as a few moments ago and a few moments hence. And if you suddenly became catatonic, you would still be you despite it. Therefore, we conclude that though your material constitution changes, something in you -- your essence -- does not.
It is this essence, the essence of a human being, that we assert with an inalienable right to live.
Why do a few human cells with no brain have a greater right to life than any other form of life
Because when human existence can be discerned, either intuitively or throught the operation of logic, whether in a fetus, an infirm individual, a person of different ethnicity, cultural background, gender, etc., we know that such an existence is the same regardless -- and the operation of the law, equal.
and especially that of actual people who are routinely executed in the US or bombed to death?
Here is where pale and I depart. Pale believes that due process of law can somehow strip a human being of his inalienable right. It is a patent contradiction because that is only possible IF the law conferred these inalienable rights in the first place -- as in civil rights. But we know that an inalienable right is independent of positive law.
And you missed my point about work/debating.
No. I often work while posting here. Most of the time, I work on data that takes a few minutes to a few hours to process.
Indeed. I have known you were slow from the beginning.
