[jlogajan]

There is no rational, ontological or scientific basis for re-defining

You jumped to quickly to square number two. Forget "re-defining." Start with "defining." You are smuggling an assumption that YOU own the original definition. Prove it.

[jlogajan]

too

[=Intervention=]

I'll bite. You profess to have the answer. When exactly does a human become a human (and ps...as others have pointed out, please define "human" in both instances here). Thanks...:)

[Diamond]

You jumped to quickly to square number two. Forget "re-defining." Start with "defining." You are smuggling an assumption that YOU own the original definition. Prove it.

OK, back on square one you used the word "human" twice in the phrase, "...when a human becomes a human...", which grammatically speaking, produces the incoherent and unintelligible corollary that there can be a human being who is not a human being. It is self-contradictory and self-refuting.

Cordially,