On July 06 2013 00:42 sc2superfan101 wrote: What level of "independence" is required for a human being to have rights, and in what way is that not completely arbitrary?
I've always liked birth as a marker because prior to birth it is has a biologically parasitic nature whereas afterwards it has a much more independent existence. Not independent in the sense that it can go out and find its own food obviously but it gets its oxygen from its own lungs and its nutrients from its own food. It is arbitrary though.
In legal terms you're right. In most countries you become a legal person only once you're born, even though you can have some of your rights, such as inheritance, guaranteed beforehand.
I believe that a better marker would be when the being achieves sentience, thus having conciousness and being able to feel pain (around the beggining of the 3rd trimester or something like that). It is arbitrary, as in I believe this even though I could believe something else (we're not talking about ultimate truths), but not arbitrary in the sense that it is random. I believe this because I find this to be reasonable.
On July 05 2013 22:10 Catocalipse wrote: Now, I could be wrong about this, but most people would agree humans don't have a right to food. So, even if an embryo is considered human, by the above logic it would still have no right to food.
Children and infants most certainly do have a right to food, at least in the USA. More accurately (and relevantly), the parent/guardians have a legal responsibility to provide food.
Neglect is frequently defined as the failure of a parent or other person with responsibility for the child to provide needed food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision to the degree that the child’s health, safety, and well-being are threatened with harm.
Moreover, people have no qualms aborting ectopic pregnancies, or embyos growing out of control (considered a form of cancer) despite the fact that they are both 'human' according to the embryo = human definition. Ectopic pregnancies can actually even go to completion, but there are still no qualms about their removal. If abortions can't be done because to kill an embryo is to kill a human, we should stop doing these procedures, too, right?
I have a moral problem with the abortion of an eptopic pregnancy, but not a legal problem. It should be legal (only because we should not require someone to risk their life for another), but morally, that is a different story entirely.
Secondly, an embryo is not a human, it is the precursor of a human, something capable of developing into a human. In fact, up until to the 8-cell stage, I believe, the cells are completely undifferentiated, so it is theoretically possible to take one of these undifferentiated cells and make it develop into an embryo. Experiments have been done, on animals, not humans, of course, to confirm this. Basically losing one of these undifferentiated cells causes no developmental malformation because they are undifferentiated.
By any reasonable biological definition, the embryo is a living organism with human DNA. Hence, it is a living human being. The nature of it's cells or any manipulation that could occur using them is entirely irrelevant.
Sure, but embryos are not 'children', even if you consider them human. If you want them to gain the rights of 'children', you need to make a case for why they should be considered such. That piece you cited is certainly not referring to embryos, anyhow. Besides, whether it's the law or not, is irrelevant to the debate, since people make the laws. This is a discussion about what the laws should be, not what they are.
I think you misunderstand me. I'll requote what I was responding too:
Now, I could be wrong about this, but most people would agree humans don't have a right to food.So, even if an embryo is considered human, by the above logic it would still have no right to food.
This part was factually incorrect.In this part you already assumed for the sake of the argument that they were human. Human's below the age of majority are "children" (or can be called such).
Besides, I didn't say that that embryos have the right to food (though I think they do). I simply said: "Hey, you're wrong. Our laws directly say that children (who are humans) do have a right to food and that adults have a responsibility to provide it."
And what the hell, just about any human cell is a "living organism with human DNA", but that doesn't make it a human.
I don't think you know what "organism" mean, Dr. Catocalipse.
Also, there is always risk of death associated with any pregnancy, even if modern medicine makes this rather small, but nonetheless, by your logic, abortions should be thus legal since pregnancies always endanger the mother.
I only support if there is an actual direct threat to the mother's life.
An organism is just an organized collection of stuff that has the characteristics of living beings, really. A bacterium (one cell) is an organism. The same is true for a single human cell. Just becuase it's not a human, doesn't mean it's not an 'organism'. But this is all just semantics anyway, and is irrelevant.
Ugh, "humans below the age of majority are children", eh? I suppose that's one definition. I don't know whether it's the legal one or not, nor does it matter (beyond arguing technicalities), as I was clearly not using that definition of 'children' in my argument. Anyway, I see your point, though as I said, what the law may or may not state, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Well, it does have relevance as it kind of invalidates your overall point about the embryo feeding on the mother. If we establish that the embryo is a human then there is both legal and moral precedent to the argument that feeding it is the responsibility of it's parents and/or guardians.
Pregnancy leading to death seems pretty direct to me, but I suspect you are implying that it needs to be likely enough for it to be a "direct threat". This is fairly arbitrary since I don't see why it matters whether one mother dies as a result of not being allowed to abort or 5000. From the perspective of "should not be forced to endanger themselves for others", anyhow.
Well, look at it this way. It is illegal for a psychologist to not report a person who has threatened to hurt another person. If we argued that the psychologist could potentially trip and break his/her neck while heading to the phone to make said report, and thus was alleviated of any responsibility... that would be ridiculous. The endangerment that occurs there is so slight that it does not qualify as alleviating the responsibility. However, if the person who threatened to hurt someone was currently pointing a loaded gun at the psychologist, we could say that the psychologist now had a reasonable argument for not picking up the phone and reporting the threat. The relative level of endangerment had reached a point where the situation has now changed and he/she is alleviated of said responsibility.
Likewise, if the mother is currently in great danger from the continuation of the pregnancy, then we can say that she is now alleviated of her responsibility to continue the pregnancy. If not, then we can say that she is not alleviated of the responsibility as the endangerment is currently too low to be considered valid excuse.
I don't know why you feel so stubbornly inclined to include a cell/bunch of cells into the definition of 'human'.
Why are you so stubbornly inclined to not exclude it? Because the assumption among most people is that humans have inalienable rights that should be protected. If the fetus/embryo/zygote is indisputably a human, then it becomes a much harder position to take that it should not be granted equal rights as all other humans.
Anyhow, I doubt anything I can say will change your mind about an embryo being a human (though I simply can't understand what resemblance you see beyond it having "human DNA").
I already told you: it is a living human organism. The only difference between it and you is that it is at a different stage of development. You might as well say that a toddler is not a human because it is not fully grown yet.
No, you're missing the point. Legal precents don't matter. This is about what the laws should be, not what they currently are.
I don't get it, do you think we should change the law to say that parents/guardians neglecting to feed their children is not criminal abuse? Like, should I change the law so a mother who starves her children is completely free of any legal responsibility? If we accept that the law as it is is fine, then what the law should be is what it is now, so discussing legal precedent does matter.
So basically you don't actually care at all whether the embryo is a human, beyond using the claim that it is one to justify not being able to abort it. This seems completely backward to me. It sounds like you want it to be a human so it can't be killed. I don't get it.
No... I'm defining it as human because it is a human. I say it should have rights because it is a human. I'm not saying it's human because I want it to have rights... I'm saying it should have rights because it is undeniably human. (And if you asked, I'm saying that you are so intent on excluding it for the same reason)
This discussion of whether it is a human is getting us nowhere. Provide a definition of 'human', so we can actually get somewhere.
A human being is a living human organism.
Oocytes, and Graafian follicles are also stages of development towards a human.
No... an oocyte is not a stage of development in the human organism's life. Neither are Graafian follicles. Neither are the sperm cells, or even the unfertilized egg. Those are all byproducts of the human organism, not the human organism itself.
Should we ban condoms and contraceptives next. Should we do our very utmost to ensure every cell capable of becoming a fully developed 'human' does so?
Sperm and egg are not human organisms, they are human cells. There is a clear biological difference.
I don't know why you feel so stubbornly inclined to include a cell/bunch of cells into the definition of 'human'.
Why are you so stubbornly inclined to not exclude it? Because the assumption among most people is that humans have inalienable rights that should be protected. If the fetus/embryo/zygote is indisputably a human, then it becomes a much harder position to take that it should not be granted equal rights as all other humans.
Anyhow, I doubt anything I can say will change your mind about an embryo being a human (though I simply can't understand what resemblance you see beyond it having "human DNA").
I already told you: it is a living human organism. The only difference between it and you is that it is at a different stage of development. You might as well say that a toddler is not a human because it is not fully grown yet.
Are there laws that are different for humans at different stages of development? Ordered by, I don't know, age or their ability to survive on their own?
No I'm not saying we should change the law to make starving your children legal. I'm arguing that we should make laws such that embryos would not have rights. If this means that they should not qualify as 'children' under the legal definition then so be it. The law is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It is what we want it to be, what it currently is does not matter.
Also, ok, so it seems we're on the same page, it just sounded the other way around from the way you phrased it.
A human is a "living human organism", is not a valid definition because it's cyclical. It's like saying a cat is a living cat. It doesn't mean anything. You can't use the word human to define itself.
Oocyte -> embryo -> human. How is oocyte not a stage of development, it clearly is a predecursor of the embryonic stage. If I don't let the oocyte get fertilized, it degenerates. If I don't let the blastocyst implant into the endometrium, it degerates. You seem to be very hung up on DNA and that somehow once all the DNA is there it's suddenly human but actually the proteins and various epigenetic modifications (which are not only on the DNA itself) are just as vital. Just having 'human DNA' will not result in a human.
Anyway, as I said, we need a definition of 'human', or this isn't going anywhere.
I don't know why you feel so stubbornly inclined to include a cell/bunch of cells into the definition of 'human'.
Why are you so stubbornly inclined to not exclude it? Because the assumption among most people is that humans have inalienable rights that should be protected. If the fetus/embryo/zygote is indisputably a human, then it becomes a much harder position to take that it should not be granted equal rights as all other humans.
Anyhow, I doubt anything I can say will change your mind about an embryo being a human (though I simply can't understand what resemblance you see beyond it having "human DNA").
I already told you: it is a living human organism. The only difference between it and you is that it is at a different stage of development. You might as well say that a toddler is not a human because it is not fully grown yet.
Are there laws that are different for humans at different stages of development? Ordered by, I don't know, age or their ability to survive on their own?
Sure there are. However, the basic human rights are generally considered to be equal regardless of age or ability to survive. The right to life, the right to feed, the right to be protected from harm.
I don't know why you feel so stubbornly inclined to include a cell/bunch of cells into the definition of 'human'.
Why are you so stubbornly inclined to not exclude it? Because the assumption among most people is that humans have inalienable rights that should be protected. If the fetus/embryo/zygote is indisputably a human, then it becomes a much harder position to take that it should not be granted equal rights as all other humans.
Anyhow, I doubt anything I can say will change your mind about an embryo being a human (though I simply can't understand what resemblance you see beyond it having "human DNA").
I already told you: it is a living human organism. The only difference between it and you is that it is at a different stage of development. You might as well say that a toddler is not a human because it is not fully grown yet.
Are there laws that are different for humans at different stages of development? Ordered by, I don't know, age or their ability to survive on their own?
Sure there are. However, the basic human rights are generally considered to be equal regardless of age or ability to survive. The right to life, the right to feed, the right to be protected from harm.
Legally speaking, you only become a person once you're born. When performing an abortion you can get arrested because abortions are illegal, not because you're killing a human being.
An oocyte isn't a human in the same way flour isn't a cake. No one's arguing for the rights of the ingredients, everyone's arguing about whether you can call it a cake while it's still in the oven. Except you know, with life.
On July 06 2013 01:51 Catocalipse wrote: No I'm not saying we should change the law to make starving your children legal. I'm arguing that we should make laws such that embryos would not have rights. If this means that they should not qualify as 'children' under the legal definition then so be it. The law is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It is what we want it to be, what it currently is does not matter.
Also, ok, so it seems we're on the same page, it just sounded the other way around from the way you phrased it.
A human is a "living human organism", is not a valid definition because it's cyclical. It's like saying a cat is a living cat. It doesn't mean anything. You can't use the word human to define itself.
Oocyte -> embryo -> human. How is oocyte not a stage of development, it clearly is a predecursor of the embryonic stage. If I don't let the oocyte get fertilized, it degenerates. If I don't let the blastocyst implant into the endometrium, it degerates. You seem to be very hung up on DNA and that somehow once all the DNA is there it's suddenly human but actually the proteins and various epigenetic modifications (which are not only on the DNA itself) are just as vital. Just having 'human DNA' will not result in a human.
Anyway, as I said, we need a definition of 'human', or this isn't going anywhere.
Okay. So you want the law to remain as it is then. Because as of now, the embryo is not considered to be a "child" (I understand that "child" is not a legal term, bear with me) and therefore is not considered to hold those human rights. I am simply saying that the law we have now, which prevents the deprivation of food from a minor, should apply to the embryo.
And the definition is fine. Human was shorthand for "human being". Human being is another way of saying: person. Basically, I am saying: "A person is a living human organism." It is undeniably human, it is undeniably an organism. It is therefore, according to my definition, a person.
The oocyte is not a separate organism. That's like saying: all the components of an orange make up an orange, therefore one component of an orange makes up an orange. No. The orange peels, by themselves, are not equal to an orange. The oocyte is not equal to the embryo. The embryo is an organism, the oocyte is a byproduct of an organism.
On July 06 2013 01:51 Catocalipse wrote: No I'm not saying we should change the law to make starving your children legal. I'm arguing that we should make laws such that embryos would not have rights. If this means that they should not qualify as 'children' under the legal definition then so be it. The law is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It is what we want it to be, what it currently is does not matter.
Also, ok, so it seems we're on the same page, it just sounded the other way around from the way you phrased it.
A human is a "living human organism", is not a valid definition because it's cyclical. It's like saying a cat is a living cat. It doesn't mean anything. You can't use the word human to define itself.
Oocyte -> embryo -> human. How is oocyte not a stage of development, it clearly is a predecursor of the embryonic stage. If I don't let the oocyte get fertilized, it degenerates. If I don't let the blastocyst implant into the endometrium, it degerates. You seem to be very hung up on DNA and that somehow once all the DNA is there it's suddenly human but actually the proteins and various epigenetic modifications (which are not only on the DNA itself) are just as vital. Just having 'human DNA' will not result in a human.
Anyway, as I said, we need a definition of 'human', or this isn't going anywhere.
Okay. So you want the law to remain as it is then. Because as of now, the embryo is not considered to be a "child" (I understand that "child" is not a legal term, bear with me) and therefore is not considered to hold those human rights. I am simply saying that the law we have now, which prevents the deprivation of food from a minor, should apply to the embryo.
And the definition is fine. Human was shorthand for "human being". Human being is another way of saying: person. Basically, I am saying: "A person is a living human organism." It is undeniably human, it is undeniably an organism. It is therefore, according to my definition, a person.
The oocyte is not a separate organism. That's like saying: all the components of an orange make up an orange, therefore one component of an orange makes up an orange. No. The orange peels, by themselves, are not equal to an orange. The oocyte is not equal to the embryo. The embryo is an organism, the oocyte is a byproduct of an organism.
human: an organism that has human DNA.
Component? The embryo is a component of a human then, because obviously you won't get a human from just an embryo -- you need other stuff too.
So now we're working with "organism that has human DNA". Well, by my definition of 'organism' this is false, so you're going to have to define 'organism' now. And as I said, human DNA is not enough, you need other stuff besides the DNA to define the development as a human. There's good odds you could use human DNA and produce a mouse if you really wanted to from it (with human proteins albeit, but a mouse nonetheless). Or much more easily, a ball of flesh, or a small multicellular organism, but nonetheless a living organism with human DNA that is most definitely not a human in any way.
You know, I usually agree with the common ideology regarding mostly everything on Teamliquid, but the reaction to this scenario boggles my mind.
I've read this thread, and what hasn't really been brought up, is the value of human life. People talk about it as being priceless, life is not priceless. Another poster said how society right now has excess DNA, and so, we waste it. That is a completely true statement, and it's how it should be.
An embryo to me, is worthless. We can replace lost embryos very easily, they don't have conscience, or really anything besides having the potential to become humans. Think of it, how a lucky sperm fertilized the egg, there is an extension of that which we decide whether we let that egg develop. Once someone is born is when they are given rights, such as the right to live, grow, and everything that comes with it. Up to that point, the egg is unable to develop without the complete aid of her mother, which to me, grants the ownership of that egg. After the baby is born, the egg is able to be developed without her mothers aid, which is why it is when it becomes a human.
Like I said, life in not priceless, and we simply put a large price on ones that are alive, because that's what society decided, because when we are alive we don't want to be harmed, and it gives us a sense of security that people wont be killing us just because are life has a value. It's an embryo, we owe nothing to the embryo, giving embryos no rights to life or anything is totally fair. We are a human species, we live for the human species. I am repeating for emphasis that the reason there are rights to life, food, and so forth for people is so it's peaceful. Back in the day, people didn't have right to life, right for food, but the society collectively decided to give them that right to keep it peaceful. Just as gay couples are getting rights to marriage, it is to keep the society peaceful and in working order.
If we neglect embryos, there is no consequence to us humans, just as how there is no consequence to us humans if we eat animals, etc. These are fundamental rights to us, that should exist. We are here for the human species, and the happiness and success of the human species. Nothing else deserves or should get any rights, humans should be free to do as they please as long as it does not negatively impact the lives of other people, simple as that, and that's truly what I believe society should be as.
However, the problem arises when other people want to make these arbitrary restrictions, such as forcing other people to keep their embryos, prevent animal cruelty, etc. These decisions have nothing to do with the success of us as a people, however, because of these vocal negative people, we must appeal to their requests to keep society in order. Therefore we have to limit freedoms for the sake of having a stable society. Now the next statement may appear a bit extreme, but hear me out first. I believe abortion should be legal until the baby is able to be sustained naturally when out of the womb (or at reasonable costs that justify keeping the baby alive opposed to making a new one). Animal cruelty, and everything else that does not affect other people should be fully legal. Now the reason this seems extreme is because of the broken system, and how we've been educated about giving rights and freedoms to everything for the last few decades, we actually believe that humans have a moral right to give freedom to other things; we don't.
So as for the question asked in the OP, the woman should have rights to the embryo's if and only if, no negative impact will yield for the father, as in he will not have to be involved. Also, this assumes everything was consensual.
That is my methodical, logical, and ideal perspective on how these issues should be treated. I approached this dilemma with a clear explanation of my beliefs, and I logically reasoned my response. I do accept to get criticism, but realize this is my perspective. If you seek to debate, please offer as me, your beliefs about this issue, and then logically present your argument based on what you believe in. Assuming we both logically deduced are decisions, the only way we can have different opinions is if we have differentiating beliefs.
Two different beliefs in an debate about a moral issue are impossible, and hence why this is a bad thread, even with good arguments. However, I decided to input my effort into this post to potentially receive an intellectual response that may find a flaw in my analysis, given my beliefs and morals as an individual. Thank you.
I don't know why you feel so stubbornly inclined to include a cell/bunch of cells into the definition of 'human'.
Why are you so stubbornly inclined to not exclude it? Because the assumption among most people is that humans have inalienable rights that should be protected. If the fetus/embryo/zygote is indisputably a human, then it becomes a much harder position to take that it should not be granted equal rights as all other humans.
Anyhow, I doubt anything I can say will change your mind about an embryo being a human (though I simply can't understand what resemblance you see beyond it having "human DNA").
I already told you: it is a living human organism. The only difference between it and you is that it is at a different stage of development. You might as well say that a toddler is not a human because it is not fully grown yet.
Are there laws that are different for humans at different stages of development? Ordered by, I don't know, age or their ability to survive on their own?
Sure there are. However, the basic human rights are generally considered to be equal regardless of age or ability to survive. The right to life, the right to feed, the right to be protected from harm.
People in a persistent vegetative state generally lose those rights after a certain period of time. The rights are taken from them and conferred to their caretakers. One could easily draw parallels.
On July 05 2013 22:10 Catocalipse wrote: This whole debate hangs on being unable to kill a 'human' due to legal/moral/religious/etc reasons. Well, not really legal, since law is a tool, and the law can be changed to suit our purposes, but I digress. The way I see it, there are two key points to clarify. Firstly, what 'killing' means, and secondly, what classifies as a 'human'. So I'll go ahead and address each point individually.
Firstly, is an abortion, or a lack of implantation, moreso, actually 'killing'? I would argue that it isn't (from a logical perspective). As it happens I'm a physician, so I know how pregnancy works in a fair amount of detail. Ultimately though, all a pregnancy is, is the embryo digesting the mother for nutrition. At times it even kills the mother if the embryo starts digesting the wrong thing (ectopic pregnancy). Things can go horribly wrong in other ways, too, but it's besides the point. Long story short, the embryo is eating the mother for nutrition. So basically, the mother is feeding the embryo, albeit in a somewhat complicated manner. Now, I could be wrong about this, but most people would agree humans don't have a right to food. So, even if an embryo is considered human, by the above logic it would still have no right to food. So in the in vitro case, I don't see why it would have any right to be implanted so it may eat some woman, and in the in vivo case, I don't see why it should have a right to eat someone else's property (their body, even), without their consent, even if it was already doing so. Sure, it might be the only food source which is viable for it, but to me it seems like this is just 'saving its life', and 'not saving someone's life' is not generally considered 'killing', so why should this be?
Secondly, an embryo is not a human, it is the precursor of a human, something capable of developing into a human. In fact, up until to the 8-cell stage, I believe, the cells are completely undifferentiated, so it is theoretically possible to take one of these undifferentiated cells and make it develop into an embryo. Experiments have been done, on animals, not humans, of course, to confirm this. Basically losing one of these undifferentiated cells causes no developmental malformation because they are undifferentiated. But hey, I'd be killing a human right there, by removing that one undifferentiated cell (because it is capable of developing into a human, or just because, even), right? Or I might even be killing it by not removing it, since if I did and implanted it again, we'd get two embryos = two humans, right? In fact, theoretically, you could get as many humans as you wanted like this, even if obviously nobody has an inclination to develop the technology to do so. To my eyes, embryos are human only in the sense that they are 'human embryos'. Oocytes are human precursors, too, but nobody is calling them human. You might argue there is even no line to be drawn between human, and not human, since it's just one cell more, or one cell less. You could make an arbitrary line up, such as when a specific physiological process starts occuring, e.g. heart tubes start beating, but this seems silly to me.
Thirdly, why the heck does it matter at all whether an embryo is a human, or whether having an abortion is killing? Sure it might matter to you if you're religious, or you believe in some sort of code that states you shouldn't kill humans (nor let others kill humans), but this is by no means descriptive of all people. In fact, we kill people all the time for various reasons, and in a very strict sense of the word 'kill', too. Why do we do it? For our benefit, ultimately, whether this be a country going to war, a policeman killing an armed criminal, or simply someone defending themselves, it is done because it benefits some group of people. Whether this is a societal, organizational, or individual decision matters not. At the end of the day, it's because it benefits 'us', whoever us is. Here's my argument: 'Us' can be every non-embryo stage human in this case. Occasionally aborting pregnancies is undoubtedly beneficial to us, and so long as you're one of those people who doesn't abide to some odd religious/moral clause, I don't see why you would want to oppose something that is clearly beneficial for us. I suppose you could argue it's not necessarily beneficial, but that's a whole different debate altogether and I don't see a strong case for it anyhow.
I support your ideas. Sam Harris was talking about the human embrio too, and I think it can make things clear for some people.
Here is the video, not 100% related to the topic but still very interesting. .
On July 06 2013 01:51 Catocalipse wrote: No I'm not saying we should change the law to make starving your children legal. I'm arguing that we should make laws such that embryos would not have rights. If this means that they should not qualify as 'children' under the legal definition then so be it. The law is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It is what we want it to be, what it currently is does not matter.
Also, ok, so it seems we're on the same page, it just sounded the other way around from the way you phrased it.
A human is a "living human organism", is not a valid definition because it's cyclical. It's like saying a cat is a living cat. It doesn't mean anything. You can't use the word human to define itself.
Oocyte -> embryo -> human. How is oocyte not a stage of development, it clearly is a predecursor of the embryonic stage. If I don't let the oocyte get fertilized, it degenerates. If I don't let the blastocyst implant into the endometrium, it degerates. You seem to be very hung up on DNA and that somehow once all the DNA is there it's suddenly human but actually the proteins and various epigenetic modifications (which are not only on the DNA itself) are just as vital. Just having 'human DNA' will not result in a human.
Anyway, as I said, we need a definition of 'human', or this isn't going anywhere.
Okay. So you want the law to remain as it is then. Because as of now, the embryo is not considered to be a "child" (I understand that "child" is not a legal term, bear with me) and therefore is not considered to hold those human rights. I am simply saying that the law we have now, which prevents the deprivation of food from a minor, should apply to the embryo.
And the definition is fine. Human was shorthand for "human being". Human being is another way of saying: person. Basically, I am saying: "A person is a living human organism." It is undeniably human, it is undeniably an organism. It is therefore, according to my definition, a person.
The oocyte is not a separate organism. That's like saying: all the components of an orange make up an orange, therefore one component of an orange makes up an orange. No. The orange peels, by themselves, are not equal to an orange. The oocyte is not equal to the embryo. The embryo is an organism, the oocyte is a byproduct of an organism.
human: an organism that has human DNA.
Component? The embryo is a component of a human then, because obviously you won't get a human from just an embryo -- you need other stuff too.
Other stuff, huh? So, you need other stuff added to a human to make it a human?
Just wondering, what definition of "human" are you using?
So now we're working with "organism that has human DNA". Well, by my definition of 'organism' this is false, so you're going to have to define 'organism' now.
What is your definition of organism?
An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism
On July 06 2013 02:27 FiWiFaKi wrote: You know, I usually agree with the common ideology regarding mostly everything on Teamliquid, but the reaction to this scenario boggles my mind.
I've read this thread, and what hasn't really been brought up, is the value of human life. People talk about it as being priceless, life is not priceless. Another poster said how society right now has excess DNA, and so, we waste it. That is a completely true statement, and it's how it should be.
An embryo to me, is worthless. We can replace lost embryos very easily, they don't have conscience, or really anything besides having the potential to become humans. Think of it, how a lucky sperm fertilized the egg, there is an extension of that which we decide whether we let that egg develop. Once someone is born is when they are given rights, such as the right to live, grow, and everything that comes with it. Up to that point, the egg is unable to develop without the complete aid of her mother, which to me, grants the ownership of that egg. After the baby is born, the egg is able to be developed without her mothers aid, which is why it is when it becomes a human.
Like I said, life in not priceless, and we simply put a large price on ones that are alive, because that's what society decided, because when we are alive we don't want to be harmed, and it gives us a sense of security that people wont be killing us just because are life has a value. It's an embryo, we owe nothing to the embryo, giving embryos no rights to life or anything is totally fair. We are a human species, we live for the human species. I am repeating for emphasis that the reason there are rights to life, food, and so forth for people is so it's peaceful. Back in the day, people didn't have right to life, right for food, but the society collectively decided to give them that right to keep it peaceful. Just as gay couples are getting rights to marriage, it is to keep the society peaceful and in working order.
If we neglect embryos, there is no consequence to us humans, just as how there is no consequence to us humans if we eat animals, etc. These are fundamental rights to us, that should exist. We are here for the human species, and the happiness and success of the human species. Nothing else deserves or should get any rights, humans should be free to do as they please as long as it does not negatively impact the lives of other people, simple as that, and that's truly what I believe society should be as.
However, the problem arises when other people want to make these arbitrary restrictions, such as forcing other people to keep their embryos, prevent animal cruelty, etc. These decisions have nothing to do with the success of us as a people, however, because of these vocal negative people, we must appeal to their requests to keep society in order. Therefore we have to limit freedoms for the sake of having a stable society. Now the next statement may appear a bit extreme, but hear me out first. I believe abortion should be legal until the baby is able to be sustained naturally when out of the womb (or at reasonable costs that justify keeping the baby alive opposed to making a new one). Animal cruelty, and everything else that does not affect other people should be fully legal. Now the reason this seems extreme is because of the broken system, and how we've been educated about giving rights and freedoms to everything for the last few decades, we actually believe that humans have a moral right to give freedom to other things; we don't.
So as for the question asked in the OP, the woman should have rights to the embryo's if and only if, no negative impact will yield for the father, as in he will not have to be involved. Also, this assumes everything was consensual.
That is my methodical, logical, and ideal perspective on how these issues should be treated. I approached this dilemma with a clear explanation of my beliefs, and I logically reasoned my response. I do accept to get criticism, but realize this is my perspective. If you seek to debate, please offer as me, your beliefs about this issue, and then logically present your argument based on what you believe in. Assuming we both logically deduced are decisions, the only way we can have different opinions is if we have differentiating beliefs.
Two different beliefs in an debate about a moral issue are impossible, and hence why this is a bad thread, even with good arguments. However, I decided to input my effort into this post to potentially receive an intellectual response that may find a flaw in my analysis, given my beliefs and morals as an individual. Thank you.
Basically. you're saying what we do, we do because it benefits us. And by saying it benefits us, you mean that it furthers our objectives, which are motivated by our desires. And this is true, and is reflected in the way society is run. However, there's people who want embryos to live (usually for religious reasons), so they do what they can to get what they want. Your argument is fine for convincing people who aren't religious, but this is a bit like preaching to the choir -- they're already convinced. Animal cruelty is definitely off topic here, but likewise, some people dislike it for various reasons (valid, or not), so they do what they feel inclined to, to get what they want (i.e. less animal cruelty).
If anything, the problem with your argument is that a key premise of it is that 'lack of animal cruelty', and 'embryo rights' yield no benefits. And your argument is fine so long as this holds. However, there are people who believe that they do yield benefits, so your argument quite literally has no influence over them. It's not persuasive to them, because they think one of your premises is false. So basically, either you find another argument to convince them that they don't yield benefits, or it just has no persuasive power over those you're trying to convince. So if you want to improve your argument, you'll need to add the 'why they yield no benefits' bit in. In the case of abortion this boils down, to either convincing them an embryo is not human, or to convincing them their religious/moral beliefs are fallacious.
On July 06 2013 01:51 Catocalipse wrote: No I'm not saying we should change the law to make starving your children legal. I'm arguing that we should make laws such that embryos would not have rights. If this means that they should not qualify as 'children' under the legal definition then so be it. The law is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It is what we want it to be, what it currently is does not matter.
Also, ok, so it seems we're on the same page, it just sounded the other way around from the way you phrased it.
A human is a "living human organism", is not a valid definition because it's cyclical. It's like saying a cat is a living cat. It doesn't mean anything. You can't use the word human to define itself.
Oocyte -> embryo -> human. How is oocyte not a stage of development, it clearly is a predecursor of the embryonic stage. If I don't let the oocyte get fertilized, it degenerates. If I don't let the blastocyst implant into the endometrium, it degerates. You seem to be very hung up on DNA and that somehow once all the DNA is there it's suddenly human but actually the proteins and various epigenetic modifications (which are not only on the DNA itself) are just as vital. Just having 'human DNA' will not result in a human.
Anyway, as I said, we need a definition of 'human', or this isn't going anywhere.
Okay. So you want the law to remain as it is then. Because as of now, the embryo is not considered to be a "child" (I understand that "child" is not a legal term, bear with me) and therefore is not considered to hold those human rights. I am simply saying that the law we have now, which prevents the deprivation of food from a minor, should apply to the embryo.
And the definition is fine. Human was shorthand for "human being". Human being is another way of saying: person. Basically, I am saying: "A person is a living human organism." It is undeniably human, it is undeniably an organism. It is therefore, according to my definition, a person.
The oocyte is not a separate organism. That's like saying: all the components of an orange make up an orange, therefore one component of an orange makes up an orange. No. The orange peels, by themselves, are not equal to an orange. The oocyte is not equal to the embryo. The embryo is an organism, the oocyte is a byproduct of an organism.
human: an organism that has human DNA.
Component? The embryo is a component of a human then, because obviously you won't get a human from just an embryo -- you need other stuff too.
Other stuff, huh? So, you need other stuff added to a human to make it a human?
Just wondering, what definition of "human" are you using?
So now we're working with "organism that has human DNA". Well, by my definition of 'organism' this is false, so you're going to have to define 'organism' now.
What is your definition of organism?
An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism
Well, you can take a single human cell, and put in a culture and it'll survive, reproduce, etc. so by that definition it's obviously an organism. Lest you want to call some random human cell a human, I suggest you reconsider that definition. Also, this definition seems acceptable for organism to me, so I suppose you could call it this, though I don't see why it needs to be in one of those six categories.
I honestly don't think you can get a good definition of 'human'. In fact, I don't think there is a satisfactory one at all.
On July 06 2013 01:51 Catocalipse wrote: No I'm not saying we should change the law to make starving your children legal. I'm arguing that we should make laws such that embryos would not have rights. If this means that they should not qualify as 'children' under the legal definition then so be it. The law is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It is what we want it to be, what it currently is does not matter.
Also, ok, so it seems we're on the same page, it just sounded the other way around from the way you phrased it.
A human is a "living human organism", is not a valid definition because it's cyclical. It's like saying a cat is a living cat. It doesn't mean anything. You can't use the word human to define itself.
Oocyte -> embryo -> human. How is oocyte not a stage of development, it clearly is a predecursor of the embryonic stage. If I don't let the oocyte get fertilized, it degenerates. If I don't let the blastocyst implant into the endometrium, it degerates. You seem to be very hung up on DNA and that somehow once all the DNA is there it's suddenly human but actually the proteins and various epigenetic modifications (which are not only on the DNA itself) are just as vital. Just having 'human DNA' will not result in a human.
Anyway, as I said, we need a definition of 'human', or this isn't going anywhere.
Okay. So you want the law to remain as it is then. Because as of now, the embryo is not considered to be a "child" (I understand that "child" is not a legal term, bear with me) and therefore is not considered to hold those human rights. I am simply saying that the law we have now, which prevents the deprivation of food from a minor, should apply to the embryo.
And the definition is fine. Human was shorthand for "human being". Human being is another way of saying: person. Basically, I am saying: "A person is a living human organism." It is undeniably human, it is undeniably an organism. It is therefore, according to my definition, a person.
The oocyte is not a separate organism. That's like saying: all the components of an orange make up an orange, therefore one component of an orange makes up an orange. No. The orange peels, by themselves, are not equal to an orange. The oocyte is not equal to the embryo. The embryo is an organism, the oocyte is a byproduct of an organism.
human: an organism that has human DNA.
Component? The embryo is a component of a human then, because obviously you won't get a human from just an embryo -- you need other stuff too.
Other stuff, huh? So, you need other stuff added to a human to make it a human?
Just wondering, what definition of "human" are you using?
So now we're working with "organism that has human DNA". Well, by my definition of 'organism' this is false, so you're going to have to define 'organism' now.
What is your definition of organism?
An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism
Well, you can take a single human cell, and put in a culture and it'll survive, reproduce, etc. so by that definition it's obviously an organism.
No, it's not an organism. An organism has to have all of those qualities, not just one or two.
Lest you want to call some random human cell a human, I suggest you reconsider that definition.
You should give that recommendation to biologists everywhere.
Also, this definition seems acceptable for organism to me, so I suppose you could call it this, though I don't see why it needs to be in one of those six categories.
I honestly don't think you can get a good definition of 'human'. In fact, I don't think there is a satisfactory one at all.
So you don't have a definition of human... you don't understand the definition of organism... but you're positive that an embryo doesn't qualify...
On July 06 2013 01:51 Catocalipse wrote: No I'm not saying we should change the law to make starving your children legal. I'm arguing that we should make laws such that embryos would not have rights. If this means that they should not qualify as 'children' under the legal definition then so be it. The law is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It is what we want it to be, what it currently is does not matter.
Also, ok, so it seems we're on the same page, it just sounded the other way around from the way you phrased it.
A human is a "living human organism", is not a valid definition because it's cyclical. It's like saying a cat is a living cat. It doesn't mean anything. You can't use the word human to define itself.
Oocyte -> embryo -> human. How is oocyte not a stage of development, it clearly is a predecursor of the embryonic stage. If I don't let the oocyte get fertilized, it degenerates. If I don't let the blastocyst implant into the endometrium, it degerates. You seem to be very hung up on DNA and that somehow once all the DNA is there it's suddenly human but actually the proteins and various epigenetic modifications (which are not only on the DNA itself) are just as vital. Just having 'human DNA' will not result in a human.
Anyway, as I said, we need a definition of 'human', or this isn't going anywhere.
Okay. So you want the law to remain as it is then. Because as of now, the embryo is not considered to be a "child" (I understand that "child" is not a legal term, bear with me) and therefore is not considered to hold those human rights. I am simply saying that the law we have now, which prevents the deprivation of food from a minor, should apply to the embryo.
And the definition is fine. Human was shorthand for "human being". Human being is another way of saying: person. Basically, I am saying: "A person is a living human organism." It is undeniably human, it is undeniably an organism. It is therefore, according to my definition, a person.
The oocyte is not a separate organism. That's like saying: all the components of an orange make up an orange, therefore one component of an orange makes up an orange. No. The orange peels, by themselves, are not equal to an orange. The oocyte is not equal to the embryo. The embryo is an organism, the oocyte is a byproduct of an organism.
human: an organism that has human DNA.
Component? The embryo is a component of a human then, because obviously you won't get a human from just an embryo -- you need other stuff too.
Other stuff, huh? So, you need other stuff added to a human to make it a human?
Just wondering, what definition of "human" are you using?
So now we're working with "organism that has human DNA". Well, by my definition of 'organism' this is false, so you're going to have to define 'organism' now.
What is your definition of organism?
An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism
Well, you can take a single human cell, and put in a culture and it'll survive, reproduce, etc. so by that definition it's obviously an organism.
No, it's not an organism. An organism has to have all of those qualities, not just one or two.
Also, this definition seems acceptable for organism to me, so I suppose you could call it this, though I don't see why it needs to be in one of those six categories.
I honestly don't think you can get a good definition of 'human'. In fact, I don't think there is a satisfactory one at all.
So you don't have a definition of human... you don't understand the definition of organism... but you're positive that an embryo doesn't qualify...
I meant it has all of the qualities. It will react to stimuli, e.g. hormones; it will reproduce; grow is the same as reproduce for small organisms; maintain homeostasis, all cells, and even organelles within them, do this, otherwise life would be impossible because enzymes wouldn't work. And it has all the characteristics of an animal.
Sorry but most biologists would agree with me that a single human cell is an organism, at least those I know. Certainly wouldn't consider a human cell, or bunch of human cells, a 'human'.
And I don't have a good definition of a human, because I don't think there is one. I can certainly tell what isn't a suitable definition for 'human', though, because it doesn't fit. You can't qualify an embryo, or anything, for that matter, as a human, so long as you can't define it. The onus of defining 'human' is on you, if you want to put an embryo under its banner, not on me. I don't need a definition, you do. Otherwise it's like saying that there's these things called X, you're not quite sure what qualifies as an X, but you're certain an embryo is an X, despite not knowing what an X is. Not very convincing, is it?
@Cat: Your argument is bad. By your definition, no one has any inherent rights. By arguing away rights for the unborn, you've forsaken rights for everyone else. Maybe you should answer a different question: who does deserve rights? Might be easier to work your way back from there.
On July 06 2013 01:51 Catocalipse wrote: No I'm not saying we should change the law to make starving your children legal. I'm arguing that we should make laws such that embryos would not have rights. If this means that they should not qualify as 'children' under the legal definition then so be it. The law is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It is what we want it to be, what it currently is does not matter.
Also, ok, so it seems we're on the same page, it just sounded the other way around from the way you phrased it.
A human is a "living human organism", is not a valid definition because it's cyclical. It's like saying a cat is a living cat. It doesn't mean anything. You can't use the word human to define itself.
Oocyte -> embryo -> human. How is oocyte not a stage of development, it clearly is a predecursor of the embryonic stage. If I don't let the oocyte get fertilized, it degenerates. If I don't let the blastocyst implant into the endometrium, it degerates. You seem to be very hung up on DNA and that somehow once all the DNA is there it's suddenly human but actually the proteins and various epigenetic modifications (which are not only on the DNA itself) are just as vital. Just having 'human DNA' will not result in a human.
Anyway, as I said, we need a definition of 'human', or this isn't going anywhere.
Okay. So you want the law to remain as it is then. Because as of now, the embryo is not considered to be a "child" (I understand that "child" is not a legal term, bear with me) and therefore is not considered to hold those human rights. I am simply saying that the law we have now, which prevents the deprivation of food from a minor, should apply to the embryo.
And the definition is fine. Human was shorthand for "human being". Human being is another way of saying: person. Basically, I am saying: "A person is a living human organism." It is undeniably human, it is undeniably an organism. It is therefore, according to my definition, a person.
The oocyte is not a separate organism. That's like saying: all the components of an orange make up an orange, therefore one component of an orange makes up an orange. No. The orange peels, by themselves, are not equal to an orange. The oocyte is not equal to the embryo. The embryo is an organism, the oocyte is a byproduct of an organism.
human: an organism that has human DNA.
Component? The embryo is a component of a human then, because obviously you won't get a human from just an embryo -- you need other stuff too.
Other stuff, huh? So, you need other stuff added to a human to make it a human?
Just wondering, what definition of "human" are you using?
So now we're working with "organism that has human DNA". Well, by my definition of 'organism' this is false, so you're going to have to define 'organism' now.
What is your definition of organism?
An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism
Well, you can take a single human cell, and put in a culture and it'll survive, reproduce, etc. so by that definition it's obviously an organism.
No, it's not an organism. An organism has to have all of those qualities, not just one or two.
Lest you want to call some random human cell a human, I suggest you reconsider that definition.
You should give that recommendation to biologists everywhere.
Also, this definition seems acceptable for organism to me, so I suppose you could call it this, though I don't see why it needs to be in one of those six categories.
I honestly don't think you can get a good definition of 'human'. In fact, I don't think there is a satisfactory one at all.
So you don't have a definition of human... you don't understand the definition of organism... but you're positive that an embryo doesn't qualify...
I meant it has all of the qualities. It will react to stimuli, e.g. hormones; it will reproduce; grow is the same as reproduce for small organisms; maintain homeostasis, all cells, and even organelles within them, do this, otherwise life would be impossible because enzymes wouldn't work. And it has all the characteristics of an animal.
Cells are not organisms though... at least, they are not considered as such. Otherwise humans would not be single organisms, but rather millions of organisms.
Sorry but most biologists would agree with me that a single human cell is an organism, at least those I know. Certainly wouldn't consider a human cell, or bunch of human cells, a 'human'.
So most biologists would agree that a skin cell is an organism, but that a embryo is not human? Really... have proof of that?
And I don't have a good definition of a human, because I don't think there is one. I can certainly tell what isn't a suitable definition for 'human', though, because it doesn't fit. You can't qualify an embryo, or anything, for that matter, as a human, so long as you can't define it.
So you can't qualify anything as a human (because you've admitted that you can't define it)? Are you a human?
The onus of defining 'human' is on you, if you want to put an embryo under its banner, not on me. I don't need a definition, you do. Otherwise it's like saying that there's these things called X, you're not quite sure what qualifies as an X, but you're certain an embryo is an X, despite not knowing what an X is. Not very convincing, is it?
I've given a definition of human, I'm just wondering where your objections come into play (like if you have other definitions). Of course, getting anything out of you is like pulling teeth.
EPT
