I was musing on this today and I thought it provided a very different and interesting source of hypotheticals for looking at embryos, when life starts, the obligation to carry an embryo to term and so forth.
So, first, some background. IVF stands for in vitro fertilisation, basically fertilisation of an egg outside the body. It's used with couples who are struggling to conceive naturally to help them have children. Basically you get eggs from the woman using science, you get sperm from the man using his hand, you mix them up, you wait for two or three cell divisions and then you put the mix back into the woman using science and hopefully a baby happens.
Why it's interesting
1. The conception happens outside of the body. - This means that there is no default mother to place responsibility for carrying it to term upon. Unlike normal conception where the default is that the egg is attached to some woman's womb in IVF it's in a test tube. The default position of the egg is not on it's way to becoming a person if not interfered with but rather completely fucked unless interfered with. Does this different default position change the value of the fertilised egg?
- In the hypothetical case that the mother changes her mind before the egg is implanted we get a bunch of great moral problems to think on. We now have a pre-emptive abortion where a woman chooses to not get pregnant with a baby she already chose to conceive. For the anti-abortionists among you, should she be forcibly implanted with the fertilised egg? If not, what happens to it? Does it still come under "my body, my right" if it's not in her body?
- Oddly enough there was a case in the UK when a couple broke up after a successful course of IVF resulted in the fertilisation of eggs. The man wanted the eggs destroyed whereas the woman, who had subsequently had her ovaries removed due to cancer, wanted to keep them because they were her only chance of ever having a natural child. The genetic material that made up the fertilised eggs had come from both of them while the eggs weren't in the body of either of them. Should the man be allowed to abort their eggs in this case or should the woman be allowed to carry them against his will?
- In the case of unwanted fertilised eggs should effort be made to find a potential surrogate to give birth to them? Perhaps hiring unemployed teenage mothers to squeeze them out (rather than more of their own, amirite?) and give them a chance at life. If you're not going to give these eggs a womb to live in is it justifiable to destroy them? In my opinion this is where the hypothetical gets really cool. The core argument for abortion is not that the mother has the right to kill her unborn children but rather than the mother has the right to control her own body which includes ending a pregnancy, the death of the unborn child is an unfortunate side effect. With a fertilised egg on ice nobody is having their right to their own body in any way violated by it, it's just sitting on ice, so killing it becomes a deliberate act rather than an unfortunate side effect. Does this mean it is worse to destroy a fertilised test tube egg than a normal abortion? Is it justifiable to destroy it if nobody wants to carry it to birth in their womb? Is there an obligation to carry it upon the creation of it and if so who has this obligation? If, for example, the mother dies before implantation should the father then hire a surrogate mother because he has an obligation to ensure his unborn child is born if he can?
- If you're not going to force anyone to make sure the fertilised eggs get carried to term and nobody wants them but you don't want to destroy them because they're fertilised eggs which are still completely viable and could become people if they only got a womb to bake in for 9 months then what do you do with them? Store them indefinitely even though you're getting lots of eggs and no women who randomly want to be implanted with eggs? Is there a moral difference between indefinitely storing the eggs and destroying them? If yes, would that mean that if a pregnant woman decided to pause her pregnancy indefinitely and never resume it (and tell you she planned to never resume it) that'd be morally different to aborting the child? It wouldn't get born either way but in one it'd technically retain potential life. Should the state pay for the protection of these unborn potential citizens, they may only be 8 cells but they're still completely viable and could become people if only given a chance.
2. Surplus eggs When an egg is implanted the magic doesn't always happen, sometimes it doesn't work just like a lot of naturally conceived eggs which the body will discard for whatever reasons. To save time and money IVF is usually done in bulk, the woman will get fertility treatments and will have a dozen or so eggs harvested at the same time. Then all the eggs are fertilised, even though she only wants one baby. The others will generally get destroyed which is great for us in hypothetical ethics land.
- Is it justifiable to fertilise more eggs than you plan to carry to term? This is literally abortion of convenience, deliberately creating fertilised human embryos (they've split to 8 cells or so) with the intent to destroy most of them in order to save time and money. Should it be allowed?
- IVF is expensive and time consuming and an individual egg has a fairly low success rate. If a woman is forced to go one egg at a time then she may run out of money or fertile years and not be able to have a child at all. Consider this hypothetical. She has ten unfertilised eggs sitting in test tubes with a load of sperm in a test tube next to them. She is told that the chance of success for an egg is roughly 10% and she can afford three attempts. If she tries to avoid discarding embryos then there is a 73% (0.9^3) chance that she simply won't have a child, that there would be a potential human who would have lived had she fertilised all of them, that did not get to live. Does that potential human have no value because it is theoretical because the egg and sperm that would make it have glass between them? If she has all ten fertilised there is a 65% (1-0.9^10) chance she'll end up having an actual child, by choosing to fertilise all the eggs she's doubled the chance of one of them actually becoming a person but also guaranteed the death of fertilised eggs whereas previously they'd have died unfertilised. Is this worth it? Are the embryos at 8 cells so much more valuable than the unfertilised eggs at 1 cell that they should be protected even at the cost of lowering the chance that an actual child is born of one of them? Also, in this case, the embryos are being protected by making sure that if you do discard the egg you discard it before it is fertilised, the embryos aren't being kept safe by going one round of IVF at a time, they're just never existing.
- Is it better to discard an unfertilised egg and some sperm than an 8 cell embryo or is it essentially the same? If an embryo is given value and protection because of that and it results in people simply discarding unfertilised eggs and sperm such that the embryo you're trying to protect never actually exists have you actually protected it? In the above example placing a different value of the embryo to the egg actually lowers the odds of any egg becoming a child, is an embryo still morally equivalent to a child despite this?
- The decision of which embryos to implant and which to destroy essentially amounts to selective abortion. Say a woman starts with ten eggs, six become viable embryos and the doctors wish to implant three to give her decent odds of having a single child. Three of the embryos are boys, three are girls. She wants a girl, should she choose those three and have the three boy embryos destroyed? Is this morally any different from her getting pregnant naturally, finding out the sex and aborting it if it's a boy? Statistically is it better to get an actual gender based abortion to get a girl (if she got pregnant and aborted boys until she got a girl there would be a 50% chance of her having no abortions, a 75% chance of having one or less, 87.5% chance of her having two or less, 93.75% chance of her having three or less)? By those numbers discarding the three male embryos just because she wants a girl is statistically way worse than just aborting boys after a natural pregnancy. Or is it better because three had to get aborted anyway so you might as well choose? Should she randomise it and just pick three of the six or does it make sense to choose?
3. Life begins at implantation - The argument that an embryo has value is based on the assumption that at the moment of conception it is a potential human life which, lacking outside interference, will possibly become a human. This isn't true of an IVF embryo until implantation which happens after conception or possibly not at all. If it still needs outside interference to possibly become a human then how is an embryo in a test tube any different from an egg in a test tube with some sperm available? Both can potentially become humans, one needs to be implanted, the other needs to be mixed then implanted but neither will ever become anything more than the cells they already are without outside interference. In terms of their odds of becoming a human they're about the same. Does this mean they're both potential humans or does the fertilised embryo get to be a potential human while the egg and sperm don't? Given the act of fertilising the embryo was a deliberate human intervention does that mean an embryo in a needle ready to be implanted is more of a potential human than one in a test tube (it is after all closer to being born) or are they both potential humans with the same value? If there are both potential humans with the same value, albeit one closer to birth than the other due to human intervention, then how can we consider the unfertilised egg and sperm cells as not potential human even though the same human intervention separates them from the embryo?
- Is a fertilised egg on ice alive in the same sense as one in the womb? If a woman might freely choose to discard one before implantation (when its chance of naturally progressing to birth is 0) should she be able to afterwards (when it has a decent chance of becoming a child)? Does the "life begins at conception" not apply to test tube babies because it is built on the assumption that conception naturally leads to pregnancy (a reasonable assumption at the time) which has been outdated by science? If the correct interpretation of that stance is "life begins when it will, lacking outside interference, become an independent living thing" then does life begin at implantation for IVF babies? Or, looking at it in the opposite direction, does life begin when you forget to put a condom in your pocket several hours before you inevitably have sex with your ovulating girlfriend? If the moment of conception is not innately special but is rather just the usual starting point of a special sequence then what does that mean for ensoulment?
Feel free to answer any of these ethical questions or add your own questions from this moral minefield. Post any related musings you want to too. Those who know me will know my stance on abortion is pro-choice relating to freedom over your own body, something which I'm not sure is relevant to this, but I thought I'd state my background anyway. Have fun.
I think the man doesn't have the right to demand an abortion. While the whole "her body, her rules" thing has its limits, I'd say this falls under that. If you didn't want to have children with this woman, then either deadbeat dad your way out of the situation or, better yet, don't fucking have children with this woman. Similarly, though, I feel the woman doesn't have the right to get an abortion if the father wants the babies to live. Remember, to people who are pro-life, aborting their children is nothing short of murder. Very few things can justify inflicting that level of emotional harm on another human being, especially since this is such a subjective topic. If an abortion is to happen, it must be agreed upon by path parties.
(Naturally, there will be unusual circumstances that change the morality of the situation, i.e. spiteful bitch carrying child to term so she can suck more money out of her ex-husband. The above post was written under the assumption that nothing crazy is happening.)
On July 05 2013 06:01 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: I think the man doesn't have the right to demand an abortion. While the whole "her body, her rules" thing has its limits, I'd say this falls under that. If you didn't want to have children with this woman, then either deadbeat dad your way out of the situation or, better yet, don't fucking have children with this woman. Similarly, though, I feel the woman doesn't have the right to get an abortion if the father wants the babies to live. Remember, to people who are pro-life, aborting their children is nothing short of murder. Very few things can justify inflicting that level of emotional harm on another human being, especially since this is such a subjective topic. If an abortion is to happen, it must be agreed upon by path parties.
In the case I brought up the man wanted the embryos destroyed while they were still in the test tube. They weren't inside either of them and were made of genetic material from both of them. What you're talking about here is regular abortions, something which will very rapidly derail this topic. I'm really unsure of the relevance of anything you wrote.
On July 05 2013 06:01 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: I think the man doesn't have the right to demand an abortion. While the whole "her body, her rules" thing has its limits, I'd say this falls under that. If you didn't want to have children with this woman, then either deadbeat dad your way out of the situation or, better yet, don't fucking have children with this woman. Similarly, though, I feel the woman doesn't have the right to get an abortion if the father wants the babies to live. Remember, to people who are pro-life, aborting their children is nothing short of murder. Very few things can justify inflicting that level of emotional harm on another human being, especially since this is such a subjective topic. If an abortion is to happen, it must be agreed upon by path parties.
In the case I brought up the man wanted the embryos destroyed while they were still in the test tube. What you're talking about here is regular abortions, something which will very rapidly derail this topic.
Perhaps I misused the word "abortion." What I meant by that is aborting the process of a child's development, barring ridiculous shit like killing billions of sperm cells by masturbating into a tissue. I personally don't distinguish between cells inside and outside the womb, at least in regards to the whole "who has the right to abort the baby" thing.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
On July 05 2013 06:01 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: I think the man doesn't have the right to demand an abortion. While the whole "her body, her rules" thing has its limits, I'd say this falls under that. If you didn't want to have children with this woman, then either deadbeat dad your way out of the situation or, better yet, don't fucking have children with this woman. Similarly, though, I feel the woman doesn't have the right to get an abortion if the father wants the babies to live. Remember, to people who are pro-life, aborting their children is nothing short of murder. Very few things can justify inflicting that level of emotional harm on another human being, especially since this is such a subjective topic. If an abortion is to happen, it must be agreed upon by path parties.
In the case I brought up the man wanted the embryos destroyed while they were still in the test tube. What you're talking about here is regular abortions, something which will very rapidly derail this topic.
Perhaps I misused the word "abortion." What I meant by that is aborting the process of a child's development, barring ridiculous shit like killing billions of sperm cells by masturbating into a tissue. I personally don't distinguish between cells inside and outside the womb, at least in regards to the whole "who has the right to abort the baby" thing.
It's interesting that you describe it as a process of development because that is exactly why the IVF topic becomes a grey area. With a frozen test tube embryo there is no process of development unless humans deliberately intervene. It'll stay 4 or 8 cells forever.
On July 05 2013 06:19 Blargh wrote: Aw, Kwark, you shouldn't have!
What if I said that unfertilized eggs have just as much of a right to live as any fetus 8 months in?!
Then it becomes a question of practicality. Is it possible to deliver an 8 month old fetus and place it with adoptive parents, probably yes. Is it possible to collect periods from girls and mix them with sperm and then implant them in women to make sure that no egg is wasted, not really. Morality is often shaped more by practicality than rationality.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
I think the uniqueness means that scientifically it's impossible to say anything but that it is a human life, but my beliefs come from the idea that life begins at conception (regardless of how conception is achieved) and that every human being has a soul and thus deserves equal rights and representation as every other person.
Obviously we've created a huge problem with IVF, in my opinion. We have these people who we've put in stasis... it's kind of disturbing. Ideally, the further creation of embryos would be outlawed and a system to "adopt an embryo" would be enacted.
Fair enough sc2superfan101. While you draw your argument from a principle I don't believe in that's a logically coherent position to hold. Thanks for taking part I guess.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
If natural isn't your argument, then why is this any different than regular conception? Where are they toying around? What is bad about it? Who is harmed and why? What disadvantages does this pose? You say that the people interested in this should adopt instead. Should the people who plan to conceive in whatever you define as a non 'toying around' manner be persuaded to adopt instead?
Not that this particular point has much actual value, but if something resembling the small cluster of cells known as an embryo was found, say, on Mars, it would be unequivocally "Life" despite having no more "process of development" available to it than the same embryo in a test tube freezer on earth.
PS: this thread feels like KwarK got an itch to ban somebody so he cooked up a ban-trap. Not that it isn't thoughtful or anything, just that this thread feels like a ban-trap.
On July 05 2013 06:29 Sn0_Man wrote: Not that this particular point has much actual value, but if something resembling the small cluster of cells known as an embryo was found, say, on Mars, it would be unequivocally "Life" despite having no more "process of development" available to it than the same embryo in a test tube freezer on earth.
PS: this thread feels like KwarK got an itch to ban somebody so he cooked up a ban-trap. Not that it isn't thoughtful or anything.
Same if they found a fingernail though. The question isn't whether it is cells with genetic material. The question, or at least one of the great, great many questions, is is it enough to be cells with human genetic material or does it need a womb to be special? Obviously some, like those who believe in the doctrine of ensoulment, know an answer to this that doesn't rely on making an argument but that's no fun.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
If natural isn't your argument, then why is this any different than regular conception? Where are they toying around? What is bad about it? Who is harmed and why? What disadvantages does this pose? You say that the people interested in this should adopt instead. Should the people who plan to conceive in whatever you define as a non 'toying around' manner be persuaded to adopt instead?
Put forth a position!
Well, a big problem would be that some of the embryos created never get used. They are just sitting there in stasis. The people being hurt are the embryos themselves. Also, I think IVF devalues human life in the embryonic form.
Also, a lot of these attempts were unsuccessful, meaning we sacrificed human beings for the cause of perfecting the use of human beings.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
If natural isn't your argument, then why is this any different than regular conception? Where are they toying around? What is bad about it? Who is harmed and why? What disadvantages does this pose? You say that the people interested in this should adopt instead. Should the people who plan to conceive in whatever you define as a non 'toying around' manner be persuaded to adopt instead?
Put forth a position!
Well, a big problem would be that some of the embryos created never get used. They are just sitting there in stasis. The people being hurt are the embryos themselves. Also, I think IVF devalues human life in the embryonic form.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats.
Another interesting corollary to this argument is the eugenics side of things. Often as IVF is done in bulk, science can non destructively test these embryos for things like down syndrome or crippling genetic disorders and chose the most healthy one for implantation. It is conceivable that science will be able to test for things beyond genetic disorders and give the parents a list of available physical and possible even mental attributes to chose in their child and discard the rest.
This added complication adds more dimensions to the argument. Is it morally acceptable for parents to chose these physical attributes in child? As it stands no one decides your hair color or eye color but imagine if your parents did without your consent, is this acceptable? If you think IVF currently is okay, is it still when you are to destroy these embryos the reason that the child will not have blue eyes or something else that does not significantly affect the quality of life of the child? Even then, where do you drawn the line of significantly effect quality of life?
EDIT: I CAN READ THE FULL OP
Seriously it was a wall of text and I didn't read all of it but as this is already in the OP let me offer my own opinion.
I think it is perfectly acceptable to make these choices as you let artificial selection run its course even faster as it should benefit humanity in the long run. The reason why I think we will avoid a situation like in idiocracy (movie) is because this process will likely be privately funded preventing those in poor conditions and statistically more likely to breed from having access to these eugenics. The effect would be swift, within a few generations descendants those who had the assets and foresight would have a massive advantage over those without and humanity would heavily favor those with extreme foresight which I believe is one of the best traits in ultimately pushing humanity forward.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats.
I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true.
Interesting, I always thought that the argument for allowing abortions based on women's right to decide about her body was legal trick necessitated by peculiarity of US legal system not actual ethical position. Most of ethical dilemmas disappear if you instead base legality of abortions on the lack of "personhood"/neurological complexity of embryos up until certain age. In that case most of your questions have easy answers.
Of course except the questions of how responsibilities are spread between father and mother. In the case you described I think woman should be allowed to keep the embryos if she refunds the guy all costs he provided for IVF and signs legal agreement never to pursue any material goods based on his parentage.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Well you just made every IVF person feel like they shouldn't exist...
On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote: I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post.
He didn't need to use the f word I guess (assuming that's why he was temp banned) but the guy has a good point imo.
I don't see how fertilized eggs are so special. They're not conscious, they're not really even alive right? Unless you believe that god sends down a little angel to plant a soul in every egg as soon as it's fertilized then I don't see what the problem with getting rid of them is. It's wrong to kill things because they're conscious right? Because they can feel pain and because people care about them and whatnot. Do any of these things apply to eggs just because they have the potential to be turned into human life? I don't personally think so. I'll read more from this thread. Maybe I'm missing the point or maybe I'm just wrong.
On July 05 2013 06:39 red_hq wrote: Another interesting corollary to this argument is the eugenics side of things. Often as IVF is done in bulk, science can non destructively test these embryos for things like down syndrome or crippling genetic disorders and chose the most healthy one for implantation. It is conceivable that science will be able to test for things beyond genetic disorders and give the parents a list of available physical and possible even mental attributes to chose in their child and discard the rest.
This added complication adds more dimensions to the argument. Is it morally acceptable for parents to chose these physical attributes in child? As it stands no one decides your hair color or eye color but imagine if your parents did without your consent, is this acceptable? If you think IVF currently is okay, is it still when you are to destroy these embryos the reason that the child will not have blue eyes or something else that does not significantly affect the quality of life of the child? Even then, where do you drawn the line of significantly effect quality of life?
A great point. If you're allowed to produce extra embryos and destroy them at whim because they have no value before implantation then the only limit for selection is how well we understand the genome. Whether or not that produces an unethical situation doesn't retrospectively add value to the embryos but it might necessitate them having legal protection anyway. On the other hand, if you believe an unimplanted embryo is essentially no different to sperm there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't select the best one, why leave it to chance after all. If you have two and can only keep one it's no better to decide by coinflip than by merit, one still dies, so why not keep the better one.
Is it possible to even answer a question like this or is it doomed to be tossed around by morals and scientific beliefs? Both outcomes open even more ethical doors and it just further complicates things. Human ethics and science have always clashed I think, but ethics change over generations so maybe the current generation just isn't ready to decide on such a complicated issue as this.
On July 05 2013 06:39 red_hq wrote: Another interesting corollary to this argument is the eugenics side of things. Often as IVF is done in bulk, science can non destructively test these embryos for things like down syndrome or crippling genetic disorders and chose the most healthy one for implantation. It is conceivable that science will be able to test for things beyond genetic disorders and give the parents a list of available physical and possible even mental attributes to chose in their child and discard the rest.
This added complication adds more dimensions to the argument. Is it morally acceptable for parents to chose these physical attributes in child? As it stands no one decides your hair color or eye color but imagine if your parents did without your consent, is this acceptable? If you think IVF currently is okay, is it still when you are to destroy these embryos the reason that the child will not have blue eyes or something else that does not significantly affect the quality of life of the child? Even then, where do you drawn the line of significantly effect quality of life?
In relation to the bolded question, as the kid I would be extremely glad my parents did it. After all, if they hadn't, then I wouldn't have been born. In the situation you put forth, they didn't choose my hair and eye color. They chose me over other kids for/because of my hair or eye color.
Of course, when the genes themselves become manipulable (as in, actually choosing the hair color), then we might be facing a GATTACA world.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
I think the uniqueness means that scientifically it's impossible to say anything but that it is a human life, but my beliefs come from the idea that life begins at conception (regardless of how conception is achieved) and that every human being has a soul and thus deserves equal rights and representation as every other person.
Obviously we've created a huge problem with IVF, in my opinion. We have these people who we've put in stasis... it's kind of disturbing. Ideally, the further creation of embryos would be outlawed and a system to "adopt an embryo" would be enacted.
I am really interested how you approach cloning, as there is no need for conception there and yet human being comes to existence.
I think it is extremely interesting to watch ethical systems based on tradition squirm as science offers them more and more problems they cannot consistently deal with.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
I think the uniqueness means that scientifically it's impossible to say anything but that it is a human life, but my beliefs come from the idea that life begins at conception (regardless of how conception is achieved) and that every human being has a soul and thus deserves equal rights and representation as every other person.
Obviously we've created a huge problem with IVF, in my opinion. We have these people who we've put in stasis... it's kind of disturbing. Ideally, the further creation of embryos would be outlawed and a system to "adopt an embryo" would be enacted.
I am really interested how you approach cloning, as there is no need for conception there and yet human being comes to existence.
I think it is extremely interesting to watch ethical systems based on tradition squirm as science offers them more and more problems they cannot consistently deal with.
Fuck cloning, identical twins created that problem long ago. The embryo splits into two embryos post conception and they become two different people. I believe they concluded God knows when it's going to happen ahead of time and packs extra souls into the embryo at the moment of conception.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats.
I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true.
Thats logically dishonest and you know it. The concept of ensoulment isn't a logically debatable its a philosophical and spiritual concept. Science hasn't gotten to the point of ensoulment and until it does it has a much relevant to this discussion as what kept things close to the ground was when they were building buildings.
The value of life at all stages should have a communicable value to everyone, fighting against the value of only ones self to ensure a better community.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats.
I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true.
Thats logically dishonest and you know it. The concept of ensoulment isn't a logically debatable its a philosophical and spiritual concept. Science hasn't gotten to the point of ensoulment and until it does it has a much relevant to this discussion as what kept things close to the ground was when they were building buildings.
The value of life at all stages should have a communicable value to everyone, fighting against the value of only ones self to ensure a better community.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats.
I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true.
Thats logically dishonest and you know it. The concept of ensoulment isn't a logically debatable its a philosophical and spiritual concept. Science hasn't gotten to the point of ensoulment and until it does it has a much relevant to this discussion as what kept things close to the ground was when they were building buildings.
The value of life at all stages should have a communicable value to everyone, fighting against the value of only ones self to ensure a better community.
Saying "all embryos have value because ensoulment" is as valid as saying "no embryos have value because antiensoulment (a brand new belief where the devil goes around following conception taking souls away from embryos but then God puts them back in around week 3 of pregnancy). You can form an opinion on the entire subject because of your belief in ensoulment or antiensoulment and everything sc2superfan101 said logically and coherently followed from his starting belief but because his starting belief was a belief derived from incommunicable personal experience it's just not useful in a debate. If I were to insist that embryos had no value because they had no souls because of antiensoulment that'd be great for me but unconvincing to you because you wouldn't accept my antiensoulment foundation to my argument because you'd suspect I made it up 3 minutes ago. That's the problem with bringing something that cannot be shared to a debate.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
I think the uniqueness means that scientifically it's impossible to say anything but that it is a human life, but my beliefs come from the idea that life begins at conception (regardless of how conception is achieved) and that every human being has a soul and thus deserves equal rights and representation as every other person.
Obviously we've created a huge problem with IVF, in my opinion. We have these people who we've put in stasis... it's kind of disturbing. Ideally, the further creation of embryos would be outlawed and a system to "adopt an embryo" would be enacted.
I am really interested how you approach cloning, as there is no need for conception there and yet human being comes to existence.
I think it is extremely interesting to watch ethical systems based on tradition squirm as science offers them more and more problems they cannot consistently deal with.
Fuck cloning, identical twins created that problem long ago. The embryo splits into two embryos post conception and they become two different people. I believe they concluded God knows when it's going to happen ahead of time and packs extra souls into the embryo at the moment of conception.
Well the case is somewhat different. In case of twins there was conception (as in egg and sperm were involved). In case of cloning (theoretically) any cell becomes potential human being. Currently egg is still required, but what if we gain ability to do it even without it. Problems for his argument now become basically impossible to make even superficially consistent.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
If natural isn't your argument, then why is this any different than regular conception? Where are they toying around? What is bad about it? Who is harmed and why? What disadvantages does this pose? You say that the people interested in this should adopt instead. Should the people who plan to conceive in whatever you define as a non 'toying around' manner be persuaded to adopt instead?
Put forth a position!
Well, a big problem would be that some of the embryos created never get used. They are just sitting there in stasis. The people being hurt are the embryos themselves. Also, I think IVF devalues human life in the embryonic form.
Also, a lot of these attempts were unsuccessful, meaning we sacrificed human beings for the cause of perfecting the use of human beings.
You do realize that a very large majority of the embryos naturally conceived and implanted don't ever come to term right? Every day girls become pregnant and lose the embryo at an early stage without ever knowing about it. I don't have my gynecology books before me but i'm pretty sure around 95% of successful fecundation don't lead to a baby.
IVG is not significantly less successful than the normal process in creating life.
What's the point of this debate? It's not that I'm against it, it's just that if we're debating for the sake of debating, or you want other opinions, then cool.
But if you try to reach a consensus, or some kind of middle point, I think this is just a waste of time. People won't ever reach a consensus, because we have such a biased conception of human life (nobody would care if they only did this with animals), and even if we, somehow, sorted out some kind of logical and rationally consistent conclusion, there would still be people against it.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
If natural isn't your argument, then why is this any different than regular conception? Where are they toying around? What is bad about it? Who is harmed and why? What disadvantages does this pose? You say that the people interested in this should adopt instead. Should the people who plan to conceive in whatever you define as a non 'toying around' manner be persuaded to adopt instead?
Put forth a position!
Well, a big problem would be that some of the embryos created never get used. They are just sitting there in stasis. The people being hurt are the embryos themselves. Also, I think IVF devalues human life in the embryonic form.
Also, a lot of these attempts were unsuccessful, meaning we sacrificed human beings for the cause of perfecting the use of human beings.
You do realize that a very large majority of the embryos naturally conceived and implanted don't ever come to term right? Every day girls become pregnant and lose the embryo at an early stage without ever knowing about it. I don't have my gynecology books before me but i'm pretty sure around 95% of successful fecundation don't lead to a baby.
IVG is not significantly less successful than the normal process in creating life.
But we're not responsible for it. It just happens because "nature wanted to be that way", but in the IVG case, a doctor purposely threw "humans lives" to the trash because he didn't need them anymore.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats.
I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true.
Thats logically dishonest and you know it. The concept of ensoulment isn't a logically debatable its a philosophical and spiritual concept. Science hasn't gotten to the point of ensoulment and until it does it has a much relevant to this discussion as what kept things close to the ground was when they were building buildings.
The value of life at all stages should have a communicable value to everyone, fighting against the value of only ones self to ensure a better community.
Well, after I see the soul I might take it into consideration in my ethical calculations ? Rationally there is no soul of that kind, so why would we take it into consideration.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
I think the uniqueness means that scientifically it's impossible to say anything but that it is a human life, but my beliefs come from the idea that life begins at conception (regardless of how conception is achieved) and that every human being has a soul and thus deserves equal rights and representation as every other person.
Obviously we've created a huge problem with IVF, in my opinion. We have these people who we've put in stasis... it's kind of disturbing. Ideally, the further creation of embryos would be outlawed and a system to "adopt an embryo" would be enacted.
I am really interested how you approach cloning, as there is no need for conception there and yet human being comes to existence.
I think it is extremely interesting to watch ethical systems based on tradition squirm as science offers them more and more problems they cannot consistently deal with.
Fuck cloning, identical twins created that problem long ago. The embryo splits into two embryos post conception and they become two different people. I believe they concluded God knows when it's going to happen ahead of time and packs extra souls into the embryo at the moment of conception.
Well the case is somewhat different. In case of twins there was conception (as in egg and sperm were involved). In case of cloning (theoretically) any cell becomes potential human being. Currently egg is still required, but what if we gain ability to do it even without it. Problems for his argument now become basically impossible to make even superficially consistent.
Yes but cloning is no different to twinning. God will know ahead of time that you'll be cloned and will pack an extra soul into you at your conception which will stay dormant until you get cloned.
embryo manipulation would not be viable because no one can guarantee that the embryo would actually get the woman pregnant. women get implanted, in average, with 4 embryos at a time just so that the chance for a pregnancy goes up by a few measly percentages. the success rate is about 33% for 35yr old women and drops significantly to about 6% for women over 40. not to mention that it' s expensive as fuck already.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
I think the uniqueness means that scientifically it's impossible to say anything but that it is a human life, but my beliefs come from the idea that life begins at conception (regardless of how conception is achieved) and that every human being has a soul and thus deserves equal rights and representation as every other person.
Obviously we've created a huge problem with IVF, in my opinion. We have these people who we've put in stasis... it's kind of disturbing. Ideally, the further creation of embryos would be outlawed and a system to "adopt an embryo" would be enacted.
I am really interested how you approach cloning, as there is no need for conception there and yet human being comes to existence.
I think it is extremely interesting to watch ethical systems based on tradition squirm as science offers them more and more problems they cannot consistently deal with.
Fuck cloning, identical twins created that problem long ago. The embryo splits into two embryos post conception and they become two different people. I believe they concluded God knows when it's going to happen ahead of time and packs extra souls into the embryo at the moment of conception.
Well the case is somewhat different. In case of twins there was conception (as in egg and sperm were involved). In case of cloning (theoretically) any cell becomes potential human being. Currently egg is still required, but what if we gain ability to do it even without it. Problems for his argument now become basically impossible to make even superficially consistent.
Yes but cloning is no different to twinning. God will know ahead of time that you'll be cloned and will pack an extra soul into you at your conception which will stay dormant until you get cloned.
Fair point, but I think at that point his argument becomes pretty suspect to anyone beside hard-core believers.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats.
I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true.
Thats logically dishonest and you know it. The concept of ensoulment isn't a logically debatable its a philosophical and spiritual concept. Science hasn't gotten to the point of ensoulment and until it does it has a much relevant to this discussion as what kept things close to the ground was when they were building buildings.
The value of life at all stages should have a communicable value to everyone, fighting against the value of only ones self to ensure a better community.
Saying "all embryos have value because ensoulment" is as valid as saying "no embryos have value because antiensoulment (a brand new belief where the devil goes around following conception taking souls away from embryos but then God puts them back in around week 3 of pregnancy). You can form an opinion on the entire subject because of your belief in ensoulment or antiensoulment and everything sc2superfan101 said logically and coherently followed from his starting belief but because his starting belief was a belief derived from incommunicable personal experience it's just not useful in a debate. If I were to insist that embryos had no value because they had no souls because of antiensoulment that'd be great for me but unconvincing to you because you wouldn't accept my antiensoulment foundation to my argument because you'd suspect I made it up 3 minutes ago. That's the problem with bringing something that cannot be shared to a debate.
saying "life begins at conception" isn't some specifically created time frame thats the problem you seem to be having. Its not about if they have souls at some point or another its that their life begins at conception.
Its the same logic pattern as where i-35 starts. Its not immediately known but if you follow it you'll find out that it starts in duluth and goes until it hits the Mexican border. Life has a specific start to it and without any proper argument for it starting at any point after conception it has to start at the beginning.
I would much rather see a pro-choice perspective on when live begins.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
If natural isn't your argument, then why is this any different than regular conception? Where are they toying around? What is bad about it? Who is harmed and why? What disadvantages does this pose? You say that the people interested in this should adopt instead. Should the people who plan to conceive in whatever you define as a non 'toying around' manner be persuaded to adopt instead?
Put forth a position!
Read what KwarK wrote man. That is this guy's point, he i against IVF because it can create moral conundrums with human life like this.
Great thread KwarK, made me think!
I am still 100% pro life, I am ok with IVF, I am pro adoption and I think society would get worse at first and then gradually better if we implemented that sort of thing- that everyone gives birth minus rape/ save the mother's life. See, right now a lot of kids think random repeat unprotected (and I don't feel this way about protected!) sex and promiscuity are just a big game, and that some further ritual is required to conceive.
What with kids everywhere growing up adopted, young mothers etc, it would be pretty bad yes, and pretty hard to ignore. Would last maybe a generation. That next generation? Huge fall in STD percentages, other rampant promiscuity caused issues. Would be easier to raise kids in that society I think too.
Then there is Divorce. Ultimate stupidity IMO, but I understand how it happens, and it doesn't make you a worse person. Do not get together if you aren't responsible enough to admit your own failures and give up some battles to your partner
This is what I think. I am not offended by people who disagree. I also practice dogma, this is a position I hold on a moral level. You will not convince me otherwise, so attack my idea. Not me.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats.
I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true.
Thats logically dishonest and you know it. The concept of ensoulment isn't a logically debatable its a philosophical and spiritual concept. Science hasn't gotten to the point of ensoulment and until it does it has a much relevant to this discussion as what kept things close to the ground was when they were building buildings.
The value of life at all stages should have a communicable value to everyone, fighting against the value of only ones self to ensure a better community.
Saying "all embryos have value because ensoulment" is as valid as saying "no embryos have value because antiensoulment (a brand new belief where the devil goes around following conception taking souls away from embryos but then God puts them back in around week 3 of pregnancy). You can form an opinion on the entire subject because of your belief in ensoulment or antiensoulment and everything sc2superfan101 said logically and coherently followed from his starting belief but because his starting belief was a belief derived from incommunicable personal experience it's just not useful in a debate. If I were to insist that embryos had no value because they had no souls because of antiensoulment that'd be great for me but unconvincing to you because you wouldn't accept my antiensoulment foundation to my argument because you'd suspect I made it up 3 minutes ago. That's the problem with bringing something that cannot be shared to a debate.
saying "life begins at conception" isn't some specifically created time frame thats the problem you seem to be having. Its not about if they have souls at some point or another its that their life begins at conception.
Its the same logic pattern as where i-35 starts. Its not immediately known but if you follow it you'll find out that it starts in duluth and goes until it hits the Mexican border. Life has a specific start to it and without any proper argument for it starting at any point after conception it has to start at the beginning.
I would much rather see a pro-choice perspective on when live begins.
Does it actually matter where "life" begins, my skin cells are also alive. So is not impregnated egg. Considering that cloning is an option argument that "life" just in itself , even one with human DNA, has some intrinsic value seems to be very suspect.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
If natural isn't your argument, then why is this any different than regular conception? Where are they toying around? What is bad about it? Who is harmed and why? What disadvantages does this pose? You say that the people interested in this should adopt instead. Should the people who plan to conceive in whatever you define as a non 'toying around' manner be persuaded to adopt instead?
Put forth a position!
Read what KwarK wrote man. That is this guy's point, he i against IVF because it can create moral conundrums with human life like this.
Great thread KwarK, made me think!
I am still 100% pro life, I am ok with IVF, I am pro adoption and I think society would get worse at first and then gradually better if we implemented that sort of thing- that everyone gives birth minus rape/ save the mother's life. See, right now a lot of kids think random repeat unprotected (and I don't feel this way about protected!) sex and promiscuity are just a big game, and that some further ritual is required to conceive.
What with kids everywhere growing up adopted, young mothers etc, it would be pretty bad yes, and pretty hard to ignore. Would last maybe a generation. That next generation? Huge fall in STD percentages, other rampant promiscuity caused issues. Would be easier to raise kids in that society I think too.
Then there is Divorce. Ultimate stupidity IMO, but I understand how it happens, and it doesn't make you a worse person. Do not get together if you aren't responsible enough to admit your own failures and give up some battles to your partner
This is what I think. I am not offended by people who disagree. I also practice dogma, this is a position I hold on a moral level. You will not convince me otherwise, so attack my idea. Not me.
Cheers!
All empirical data disagree with you and, even though mostly correlation, countries that implement the exact opposite of what you suggest are better off and getting better off than the ones that implement what you propose.
EDIT: Plus KwarK as far as I can tell has no problem with abortion really and IVF.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats.
I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true.
Thats logically dishonest and you know it. The concept of ensoulment isn't a logically debatable its a philosophical and spiritual concept. Science hasn't gotten to the point of ensoulment and until it does it has a much relevant to this discussion as what kept things close to the ground was when they were building buildings.
The value of life at all stages should have a communicable value to everyone, fighting against the value of only ones self to ensure a better community.
Saying "all embryos have value because ensoulment" is as valid as saying "no embryos have value because antiensoulment (a brand new belief where the devil goes around following conception taking souls away from embryos but then God puts them back in around week 3 of pregnancy). You can form an opinion on the entire subject because of your belief in ensoulment or antiensoulment and everything sc2superfan101 said logically and coherently followed from his starting belief but because his starting belief was a belief derived from incommunicable personal experience it's just not useful in a debate. If I were to insist that embryos had no value because they had no souls because of antiensoulment that'd be great for me but unconvincing to you because you wouldn't accept my antiensoulment foundation to my argument because you'd suspect I made it up 3 minutes ago. That's the problem with bringing something that cannot be shared to a debate.
saying "life begins at conception" isn't some specifically created time frame thats the problem you seem to be having. Its not about if they have souls at some point or another its that their life begins at conception.
Its the same logic pattern as where i-35 starts. Its not immediately known but if you follow it you'll find out that it starts in duluth and goes until it hits the Mexican border. Life has a specific start to it and without any proper argument for it starting at any point after conception it has to start at the beginning.
I would much rather see a pro-choice perspective on when live begins.
Conception isn't creation from nothing, it's not a thundering voice saying "let there be embryo". There is already some stuff there which is already clearly living human genetic material. You can say it's the specific start point as much as you like but that is a belief, not an argument.
There’s so many forces acting on society influencing opinions on this topic, it’s amazing. Can you see the web of it all? It pulls and pulls in different directions, sometimes the same direction. It’s evolution and religion together, and so much more. It’s everything. How cool!
I think this is a really interesting thread, as per usual of KwarK threads. I think there is a lot to discuss here but I will give my personal opinion on the overall topic for the sake of brevity and because I'm short on time.
On July 05 2013 05:48 KwarK wrote: The core argument for abortion is not that the mother has the right to kill her unborn children but rather than the mother has the right to control her own body which includes ending a pregnancy, the death of the unborn child is an unfortunate side effect. With a fertilised egg on ice nobody is having their right to their own body in any way violated by it, it's just sitting on ice, so killing it becomes a deliberate act rather than an unfortunate side effect. Does this mean it is worse to destroy a fertilised test tube egg than a normal abortion?
Certainly killing a fertilized embryo outside the human body, which wouldn’t be dependent on a specific carrier would be more of a conscious act than letting a woman do what she will with her own body. In the former you must deliberately act to destroy the would-be life for no other purpose than to destroy it, while the latter may terminate it for other causes. But isn’t it really a bit silly to think a cell or two is the same as a fully-functioning human? Sadly, some don’t.
I do think we need to outgrow this human sovereignty, though. Worrying over whether an embryo is a human when it’s just been fertilized, or when it’s a blastula, or whether it’s first started to form lungs is a bit over dramatic in my completely non-filtered opinion, which is based more on rational thought although a bit heretical for now. The truth is that "potential" is the not the same as "is". When we start to understand the difference is when things will really get cool.
On July 05 2013 05:48 KwarK wrote: Given the act of fertilising the embryo was a deliberate human intervention does that mean an embryo in a needle ready to be implanted is more of a potential human than one in a test tube (it is after all closer to being born) or are they both potential humans with the same value? If there are both potential humans with the same value, albeit one closer to birth than the other due to human intervention, then how can we consider the unfertilised egg and sperm cells as not potential human even though the same human intervention separates them from the embryo?
This is an excellent thought. Once again, I think this concept of a "potential human" is horrible. It bears no fruit, because, like you say, an unfertilized sperm and egg have that same potential, they are just further from the end result. It would be ridiculous to conclude that we have a duty to unite every sperm and egg we have. Thinking of humans in potential form means there is a gradient along which we exist, and the gradient never disappears, only become more and more impractical.
I think practicality should play more a role in this debate than it does, and practically, life is something that can persist through time by means of replication or another mechanism to retain some state or form. In this case, what I would argue would be that a human is a human (or rather is alive) if and only if it can continue to exist on it's own. Despite all the commotion around the stages of development before that, I think it's rather a waste of time.
Also, I should have prefaced this with "I hate ethics".
On July 05 2013 06:01 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: I think the man doesn't have the right to demand an abortion. While the whole "her body, her rules" thing has its limits, I'd say this falls under that. If you didn't want to have children with this woman, then either deadbeat dad your way out of the situation or, better yet, don't fucking have children with this woman. Similarly, though, I feel the woman doesn't have the right to get an abortion if the father wants the babies to live. Remember, to people who are pro-life, aborting their children is nothing short of murder. Very few things can justify inflicting that level of emotional harm on another human being, especially since this is such a subjective topic. If an abortion is to happen, it must be agreed upon by path parties.
In the case I brought up the man wanted the embryos destroyed while they were still in the test tube. What you're talking about here is regular abortions, something which will very rapidly derail this topic.
Perhaps I misused the word "abortion." What I meant by that is aborting the process of a child's development, barring ridiculous shit like killing billions of sperm cells by masturbating into a tissue. I personally don't distinguish between cells inside and outside the womb, at least in regards to the whole "who has the right to abort the baby" thing.
It's interesting that you describe it as a process of development because that is exactly why the IVF topic becomes a grey area. With a frozen test tube embryo there is no process of development unless humans deliberately intervene. It'll stay 4 or 8 cells forever.
Not forever. Nobody wants to adopt a test tube, so if the parents don't want it, the cells get defrosted. But I get your point. Analyzing my emotional reactions to this topic and discussion has yielded some interesting insights, so I'd like to thank you for that. Now back to the topic at hand. From this point on, I will be discussing the situation mentioned in the OP, where the culture has already been created but there is a disagreement in regards to whether or not the operation should continue. I will be talking about the morality of the situation. I will not be insinuating that laws should be passed, because enforcing them and wording them correctly would be too difficult. Functionally, ending a test tube baby is very similar to ending a regular baby, barring one aspect: the baby's chance of survival. Even though doctors will commonly pick and choose the embryos with the greatest chance of survival, most IVF operations have a 40-ish percent chance of success. That puts the baby in a sort of grey zone, between sperm cells and an in-womb embryo in terms of how human it is, as defined by odds of live birth. This can de-humanize the baby in the eyes of even the most staunch pro-life activist, and thus affect the emotional harm caused by one party forcing the IVF to end. That's really the only thing that changes the morality of the situation, though. Just a little wildcard that may affect how much emotional harm is done when one side terminates the culture without the other's permission.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I do see a difference between keeping someone alive (heart surgery, caesarean section) and "creating new life" (point of discussion, I know) to maybe go down the drain (surplus eggs).
Maybe I'm just too young and fertile (although I never tried or tested the quality of my sperm) to know how painful it can be not being able to get pregnant "the natural way" and maybe thinking "they should adopt or cope with it" is as bad as denying someone his or her heart surgery.
However, we live in a "what can be done, will be done"-world, so it is me who has to cope with how things are and honestly I'm not directly affected in my every day life by IVF. Things like this are personal decisions, and today I say: "I won't have IVF, I'd try to cope or adopt." Maybe this opinion will change. When a couple and a doctor and whoever else is need is agreeing to do it, who am I to say its bad?
Another big part of the discussion concerning IVF is gestational surrogacy, maybe kwark wants to start another thread with an outstandingly good OP.
If I may throw you a bone, adoption is, objectively speaking, a better decision in most cases. You alleviate the suffering of one already in existence, rather than bringing a new entity into existence. Some people just want a baby, though. I'll never be able to fathom why.
I always found these kinds of debates interesting, though I find that the position I take is generally in favor of the rights of the person most responsible for the care of the child/fetus. In almost every case it is the mother, and that makes, to me, the answers really simple.
I was musing on this today and I thought it provided a very different and interesting source of hypotheticals for looking at embryos, when life starts, the obligation to carry an embryo to term and so forth.
So, first, some background. IVF stands for in vitro fertilisation, basically fertilisation of an egg outside the body. It's used with couples who are struggling to conceive naturally to help them have children. Basically you get eggs from the woman using science, you get sperm from the man using his hand, you mix them up, you wait for two or three cell divisions and then you put the mix back into the woman using science and hopefully a baby happens.
Why it's interesting
1. The conception happens outside of the body. - This means that there is no default mother to place responsibility for carrying it to term upon. Unlike normal conception where the default is that the egg is attached to some woman's womb in IVF it's in a test tube. The default position of the egg is not on it's way to becoming a person if not interfered with but rather completely fucked unless interfered with. Does this different default position change the value of the fertilised egg?
No. In most modern countries, as abortion is allowed by request, the egg/fetus only have value to which is given by the mother. It's the mother's choice to carry her egg/fetus to term, and even if the egg is in a test tube, it is still her choice to implant it. It is her right to change her mind for whatever reason.
- In the hypothetical case that the mother changes her mind before the egg is implanted we get a bunch of great moral problems to think on. We now have a pre-emptive abortion where a woman chooses to not get pregnant with a baby she already chose to conceive. For the anti-abortionists among you, should she be forcibly implanted with the fertilised egg? If not, what happens to it? Does it still come under "my body, my right" if it's not in her body?
What moral problems?
A woman can choose to naturally conceive a child and then change her mind at any time without any consequence whatsoever. In fact, it's her right to do so. I do not see how an artificial conception changes anything in this regard. It's not a "pre-emptive" abortion any more than ovulating without fertilisation is, or an early term abortion is. In fact, if she were to change her mind later, AFTER implantation, there would be no moral qualms, correct? There is no objective difference aside from the method of conception. There might perhaps be concerns regarding medical costs and procedure associated with the conception, but that's completely irrelevant to the fact that both situations should be treated the same, at least ethically. If anything, she has saved the state and herself from a lot of potential future problems, as if she does not want to implant the egg she may have been more likely to consider an abortion later anyway.
The mother may choose to donate the fertilised egg to a surrogate mother, or she may choose to destroy it/let it naturally die. Again, what happens to the egg should be her choice, as it is naturally her choice to carry the egg/fetus to term after implantation.
- Oddly enough there was a case in the UK when a couple broke up after a successful course of IVF resulted in the fertilisation of eggs. The man wanted the eggs destroyed whereas the woman, who had subsequently had her ovaries removed due to cancer, wanted to keep them because they were her only chance of ever having a natural child. The genetic material that made up the fertilised eggs had come from both of them while the eggs weren't in the body of either of them. Should the man be allowed to abort their eggs in this case or should the woman be allowed to carry them against his will?
Again, take the case where a man has naturally conceived a child with a woman for comparison. In both cases, the man consented to the conception of the child (through IVF in the artificial case and intercourse in the natural case). I do not think you mean to debate that a woman who has conceived a child through consensual sex should be forced to get an abortion if the father desires it.
The man in the IVF case consented to IVF. It is agreed that it is the woman who will carry the egg/fetus to term. It is then the woman's right to choose, no different as if the egg had been fertilised naturally. She can choose to abort or carry to term.
The case becomes more interesting when a surrogate mother is involved; i.e. sperm and egg from man 1 and woman 1 are fertilized and the embryo is implanted in woman 2. That should probably be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (i.e. whose child will it be, ultimately?). If it's going to be the child of man 1 and woman 1 (in their care) then they should have the choice to implant/not implant. If it's going to be the child of woman 2, then it is her choice. If the egg has already been implanted, then it is woman 2's choice, etc...This type of situation can get complicated, but I do strongly believe that there is a logical and relatively fair solution for almost all situations like this.
- In the case of unwanted fertilised eggs should effort be made to find a potential surrogate to give birth to them? Perhaps hiring unemployed teenage mothers to squeeze them out (rather than more of their own, amirite?) and give them a chance at life. If you're not going to give these eggs a womb to live in is it justifiable to destroy them? In my opinion this is where the hypothetical gets really cool. The core argument for abortion is not that the mother has the right to kill her unborn children but rather than the mother has the right to control her own body which includes ending a pregnancy, the death of the unborn child is an unfortunate side effect. With a fertilised egg on ice nobody is having their right to their own body in any way violated by it, it's just sitting on ice, so killing it becomes a deliberate act rather than an unfortunate side effect. Does this mean it is worse to destroy a fertilised test tube egg than a normal abortion? Is it justifiable to destroy it if nobody wants to carry it to birth in their womb? Is there an obligation to carry it upon the creation of it and if so who has this obligation? If, for example, the mother dies before implantation should the father then hire a surrogate mother because he has an obligation to ensure his unborn child is born if he can?
The eggs were part of the woman's body prior to the attempt at IVF. If they were a part of her body before, and it was in her right to do what she wished with them, I do not see how she sacrifices that right when she seeks IVF methods to conceive a child.
Essentially the biggest problem with this type of logic that you have outlined is that it creates a lower class of people who naturally do not have the same reproductive rights as others. Those who choose artificial conception or are forced to (due to being sterile or what have you) are essentially being told in this situation that they do not have the same reproductive rights as those who have chosen natural methods, or those who are fortunate enough to be able to use them. The fertilised egg on its own has no potential for life and thus it has no rights of its own. It relies entirely upon the sustenance provided to it by the mother.
Whether the eggs are implanted, given away, or destroyed should still, even in this case, be the choice of the woman to whom they belong(ed).
If the mother should die before implantation, and there is no will outlining what should happen in this case, then the rights should be passed onto the father. If he can find a willing surrogate, then so be it-however, the surrogate should retain her right to abort after implantation just as in any other case.
I'm not sure what happens in the case where a pregnant mother dies before giving birth, while it is still possible for the child to survive, but I imagine that whatever should happen in that case should be applied to the above.
- If you're not going to force anyone to make sure the fertilised eggs get carried to term and nobody wants them but you don't want to destroy them because they're fertilised eggs which are still completely viable and could become people if they only got a womb to bake in for 9 months then what do you do with them? Store them indefinitely even though you're getting lots of eggs and no women who randomly want to be implanted with eggs? Is there a moral difference between indefinitely storing the eggs and destroying them? If yes, would that mean that if a pregnant woman decided to pause her pregnancy indefinitely and never resume it (and tell you she planned to never resume it) that'd be morally different to aborting the child? It wouldn't get born either way but in one it'd technically retain potential life. Should the state pay for the protection of these unborn potential citizens, they may only be 8 cells but they're still completely viable and could become people if only given a chance.
Currently, from what I understand it is private industries who deal with IVF, at least here in the U.S. Thus the state problems should not generally apply, as I don't actually think the state really pays much to begin with. Perhaps there can be arbitrary time limits imposed upon the retention of fertilised eggs based upon storage availability and demand, primarily. However, as usually it's a private industry that is involved, the laws that dictate what should be allowable practice should be flexible enough to protect the rights of the parent(s) and reasonable enough to prevent situations like the one you describe.
For example, I think a company policy that requires payment for storage of eggs should be allowable, as should a policy that will not allow for more eggs to be accepted/fertilised if there are a certain number of existing ones that have not been used (and this number should be reasonably high, as storage is not actually all that difficult). This "problem" is becoming less and less so with time, as technology is advancing fast enough that I imagine even in the near-future it shouldn't be an issue at all.
The pregnant woman example is quite a bit different-if this were possible, she should be allowed to do it, given that it is her body and her responsibility, both financially and otherwise.
2. Surplus eggs When an egg is implanted the magic doesn't always happen, sometimes it doesn't work just like a lot of naturally conceived eggs which the body will discard for whatever reasons. To save time and money IVF is usually done in bulk, the woman will get fertility treatments and will have a dozen or so eggs harvested at the same time. Then all the eggs are fertilised, even though she only wants one baby. The others will generally get destroyed which is great for us in hypothetical ethics land.
- Is it justifiable to fertilise more eggs than you plan to carry to term? This is literally abortion of convenience, deliberately creating fertilised human embryos (they've split to 8 cells or so) with the intent to destroy most of them in order to save time and money. Should it be allowed?
As you said yourself, the body naturally discards many eggs for whatever reason. If the goal through IVF is to get a woman pregnant, and she consents, then there is nothing wrong with this practice. If she doesn't consent, and it's an issue of time/money, then perhaps she must pay a bit more, but again, there's no real moral qualm here. If it's an issue of practicality (as in it's not possible to harvest one egg at a time or whatever) then there really isn't a choice to begin with.
- IVF is expensive and time consuming and an individual egg has a fairly low success rate. If a woman is forced to go one egg at a time then she may run out of money or fertile years and not be able to have a child at all. Consider this hypothetical. She has ten unfertilised eggs sitting in test tubes with a load of sperm in a test tube next to them. She is told that the chance of success for an egg is roughly 10% and she can afford three attempts. If she tries to avoid discarding embryos then there is a 73% (0.9^3) chance that she simply won't have a child, that there would be a potential human who would have lived had she fertilised all of them, that did not get to live. Does that potential human have no value because it is theoretical because the egg and sperm that would make it have glass between them? If she has all ten fertilised there is a 65% (1-0.9^10) chance she'll end up having an actual child, by choosing to fertilise all the eggs she's doubled the chance of one of them actually becoming a person but also guaranteed the death of fertilised eggs whereas previously they'd have died unfertilised. Is this worth it? Are the embryos at 8 cells so much more valuable than the unfertilised eggs at 1 cell that they should be protected even at the cost of lowering the chance that an actual child is born of one of them? Also, in this case, the embryos are being protected by making sure that if you do discard the egg you discard it before it is fertilised, the embryos aren't being kept safe by going one round of IVF at a time, they're just never existing.
See above; no moral qualm here. Your last statement I think serves as a proper answer to the question posed, as well.
- Is it better to discard an unfertilised egg and some sperm than an 8 cell embryo or is it essentially the same? If an embryo is given value and protection because of that and it results in people simply discarding unfertilised eggs and sperm such that the embryo you're trying to protect never actually exists have you actually protected it? In the above example placing a different value of the embryo to the egg actually lowers the odds of any egg becoming a child, is an embryo still morally equivalent to a child despite this?
They are different in the sense that the fate of an unfertilised egg should be in the control of the mother, while sperm should be under the control of the father. After conception the fate of the embryo falls under control of the mother, as she is the one to (potentially) carry it to term. Pretty much same thing I stated before though-if abortion is allowed by choice, then so should destruction of reproductive cells.
- The decision of which embryos to implant and which to destroy essentially amounts to selective abortion. Say a woman starts with ten eggs, six become viable embryos and the doctors wish to implant three to give her decent odds of having a single child. Three of the embryos are boys, three are girls. She wants a girl, should she choose those three and have the three boy embryos destroyed? Is this morally any different from her getting pregnant naturally, finding out the sex and aborting it if it's a boy? Statistically is it better to get an actual gender based abortion to get a girl (if she got pregnant and aborted boys until she got a girl there would be a 50% chance of her having no abortions, a 75% chance of having one or less, 87.5% chance of her having two or less, 93.75% chance of her having three or less)? By those numbers discarding the three male embryos just because she wants a girl is statistically way worse than just aborting boys after a natural pregnancy. Or is it better because three had to get aborted anyway so you might as well choose? Should she randomise it and just pick three of the six or does it make sense to choose?
Again, in most modern countries abortion by choice is legal. She need not even give a reason for the abortion. Thus, in this case "selective abortion" simply falls under that wider umbrella of "abortion by choice," or just "abortion." Why should this case be any different from the others? The fetus is completely dependent on the woman's body. If she has the ability and desire to select, then she should be allowed to do so as long as it is within the timeframe to obtain an abortion.
3. Life begins at implantation - The argument that an embryo has value is based on the assumption that at the moment of conception it is a potential human life which, lacking outside interference, will possibly become a human. This isn't true of an IVF embryo until implantation which happens after conception or possibly not at all. If it still needs outside interference to possibly become a human then how is an embryo in a test tube any different from an egg in a test tube with some sperm available? Both can potentially become humans, one needs to be implanted, the other needs to be mixed then implanted but neither will ever become anything more than the cells they already are without outside interference. In terms of their odds of becoming a human they're about the same. Does this mean they're both potential humans or does the fertilised embryo get to be a potential human while the egg and sperm don't? Given the act of fertilising the embryo was a deliberate human intervention does that mean an embryo in a needle ready to be implanted is more of a potential human than one in a test tube (it is after all closer to being born) or are they both potential humans with the same value? If there are both potential humans with the same value, albeit one closer to birth than the other due to human intervention, then how can we consider the unfertilised egg and sperm cells as not potential human even though the same human intervention separates them from the embryo?
This argument has never held any water to begin with-it's terrible in the case of natural conception and it's still terrible in the case of artificial conception. Whether or not an embryo will live to term as a newborn is completely unknown at the time of conception and even well afterward, regardless of the method used, just as it is unknown whether any given sperm or unfertilised egg will end up creating a child. Perhaps the chance is higher, but why should this matter?
The only relevant detail is that, ultimately, both natural and artificial conception (with implantation) result in an embryo that grows within a woman, using her for sustenance. All that matters is the woman's choice.
On July 05 2013 05:48 KwarK wrote:[spoiler] - Is a fertilised egg on ice alive in the same sense as one in the womb? If a woman might freely choose to discard one before implantation (when its chance of naturally progressing to birth is 0) should she be able to afterwards (when it has a decent chance of becoming a child)? Does the "life begins at conception" not apply to test tube babies because it is built on the assumption that conception naturally leads to pregnancy (a reasonable assumption at the time) which has been outdated by science? If the correct interpretation of that stance is "life begins when it will, lacking outside interference, become an independent living thing" then does life begin at implantation for IVF babies? Or, looking at it in the opposite direction, does life begin when you forget to put a condom in your pocket several hours before you inevitably have sex with your ovulating girlfriend? If the moment of conception is not innately special but is rather just the usual starting point of a special sequence then what does that mean for ensoulment?
Feel free to answer any of these ethical questions or add your own questions from this moral minefield. Post any related musings you want to too. Those who know me will know my stance on abortion is pro-choice relating to freedom over your own body, something which I'm not sure is relevant to this, but I thought I'd state my background anyway. Have fun.
I've said this in the past, and it's quite patently obvious in my opinion. It's unfortunate that pro-life activists/the conservative right (particularly in the U.S.) have made the "life starts at conception" issue so big. Life does not begin at conception. I'm sure that those who say it does have not considered some consequences of such a suggestion.
For example:
In the case of a miscarriage that can be deemed at least partially the fault of the mother (e.g. excessive drinking of alcohol, smoking, strenuous physical activity, etc.) should she be charged with manslaughter/murder? Those who advocate that life starts at conception, therefore abortion is immoral, would seem to suggest that this should be the case, unless the life of a fetus is not equivalent to the life of a 1 year old-in which case, why do those two lives have different definitions? What is it about the 1 year old's life that is different?
In the case a mother is at fatal risk due to pregnancy, is abortion still murder? In the case she is at nonfatal risk, but still at a health risk nonetheless? Should her life be valued any differently from the life of the unborn child, as "life begins at conception?"
In the case that the mother was raped, is abortion murder? If "life begins at conception" should her life be valued any differently from the life of the unborn child?
Logically, when saying that "life begins at conception" we introduce a whole host of other problems. If one is to say that life begins at conception, then the right to life for a child who has just been conceived should be the same as the right to life for a child who has just been born. However, in reality this would implicate numerous things that are incredibly damaging to the rights and well-being of many individuals on many different levels.
A better definition would be that life begins at birth. One could say that life begins when a fetus becomes naturally viable (i.e. if it is removed from the woman's womb, it can live on its own without machine assistance for breathing, feeding, etc.) but one of the problems with this is that it is hard to define what "naturally viable" means, as each and every case is different. Term limits can be imposed relatively arbitrarily but this imposes further complications. In addition, even a fetus that can be viable premature is still reliant on the mother for its health until it is born.
Why would the mother have deciding control over what happens to the embryo if it's not inside her and it's composed of genetic material from both mother and father? It doesn't belong to her any more than it does to him. They both contributed one cell.
On July 05 2013 08:11 KwarK wrote: Why would the mother have deciding control over what happens to the embryo if it's not inside her and it's composed of genetic material from both mother and father? It doesn't belong to her any more than it does to him. They both contributed one cell.
If the father wants to force the mother to carry the child to term, then he's naturally going to have an uphill fight given the inherent difficulties of pregnancy. Otherwise, I agree with you. "Her body her rules" has its limits.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I do see a difference between keeping someone alive (heart surgery, caesarean section) and "creating new life" (point of discussion, I know) to maybe go down the drain (surplus eggs).
Maybe I'm just too young and fertile (although I never tried or tested the quality of my sperm) to know how painful it can be not being able to get pregnant "the natural way" and maybe thinking "they should adopt or cope with it" is as bad as denying someone his or her heart surgery.
However, we live in a "what can be done, will be done"-world, so it is me who has to cope with how things are and honestly I'm not directly affected in my every day life by IVF. Things like this are personal decisions, and today I say: "I won't have IVF, I'd try to cope or adopt." Maybe this opinion will change. When a couple and a doctor and whoever else is need is agreeing to do it, who am I to say its bad?
Another big part of the discussion concerning IVF is gestational surrogacy, maybe kwark wants to start another thread with an outstandingly good OP.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats.
I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true.
Thats logically dishonest and you know it. The concept of ensoulment isn't a logically debatable its a philosophical and spiritual concept. Science hasn't gotten to the point of ensoulment and until it does it has a much relevant to this discussion as what kept things close to the ground was when they were building buildings.
The value of life at all stages should have a communicable value to everyone, fighting against the value of only ones self to ensure a better community.
Saying "all embryos have value because ensoulment" is as valid as saying "no embryos have value because antiensoulment (a brand new belief where the devil goes around following conception taking souls away from embryos but then God puts them back in around week 3 of pregnancy). You can form an opinion on the entire subject because of your belief in ensoulment or antiensoulment and everything sc2superfan101 said logically and coherently followed from his starting belief but because his starting belief was a belief derived from incommunicable personal experience it's just not useful in a debate. If I were to insist that embryos had no value because they had no souls because of antiensoulment that'd be great for me but unconvincing to you because you wouldn't accept my antiensoulment foundation to my argument because you'd suspect I made it up 3 minutes ago. That's the problem with bringing something that cannot be shared to a debate.
saying "life begins at conception" isn't some specifically created time frame thats the problem you seem to be having. Its not about if they have souls at some point or another its that their life begins at conception.
Its the same logic pattern as where i-35 starts. Its not immediately known but if you follow it you'll find out that it starts in duluth and goes until it hits the Mexican border. Life has a specific start to it and without any proper argument for it starting at any point after conception it has to start at the beginning.
I would much rather see a pro-choice perspective on when live begins.
Conception isn't creation from nothing, it's not a thundering voice saying "let there be embryo". There is already some stuff there which is already clearly living human genetic material. You can say it's the specific start point as much as you like but that is a belief, not an argument.
the biological difference between a single embryo cell and a sperm/egg cell is pretty big and occurs at a specific point in time, when the sperm penetrates the egg.
the main difference is that an embryo has a full set of unique human DNA, whereas the the sperm and eggs each have 1/2 a set of DNA -- and an embryo, left in the womb, would grow to become a person, whereas lone sperm and eggs just die.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats.
I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true.
Thats logically dishonest and you know it. The concept of ensoulment isn't a logically debatable its a philosophical and spiritual concept. Science hasn't gotten to the point of ensoulment and until it does it has a much relevant to this discussion as what kept things close to the ground was when they were building buildings.
The value of life at all stages should have a communicable value to everyone, fighting against the value of only ones self to ensure a better community.
Saying "all embryos have value because ensoulment" is as valid as saying "no embryos have value because antiensoulment (a brand new belief where the devil goes around following conception taking souls away from embryos but then God puts them back in around week 3 of pregnancy). You can form an opinion on the entire subject because of your belief in ensoulment or antiensoulment and everything sc2superfan101 said logically and coherently followed from his starting belief but because his starting belief was a belief derived from incommunicable personal experience it's just not useful in a debate. If I were to insist that embryos had no value because they had no souls because of antiensoulment that'd be great for me but unconvincing to you because you wouldn't accept my antiensoulment foundation to my argument because you'd suspect I made it up 3 minutes ago. That's the problem with bringing something that cannot be shared to a debate.
saying "life begins at conception" isn't some specifically created time frame thats the problem you seem to be having. Its not about if they have souls at some point or another its that their life begins at conception.
Its the same logic pattern as where i-35 starts. Its not immediately known but if you follow it you'll find out that it starts in duluth and goes until it hits the Mexican border. Life has a specific start to it and without any proper argument for it starting at any point after conception it has to start at the beginning.
I would much rather see a pro-choice perspective on when live begins.
Conception isn't creation from nothing, it's not a thundering voice saying "let there be embryo". There is already some stuff there which is already clearly living human genetic material. You can say it's the specific start point as much as you like but that is a belief, not an argument.
the biological difference between a single embryo cell and a sperm/egg cell is pretty big and occurs at a specific point in time, when the sperm penetrates the egg.
the main difference is that an embryo has a full set of unique human DNA, whereas the the sperm and eggs each have 1/2 a set of DNA -- and an embryo, left in the womb, would grow to become a person, whereas lone sperm and eggs just die.
seems like a pretty clear starting point to me.
Except if you're going by unique DNA then twins don't count and if you're going by left in a womb then IVF doesn't count.
I'm pretty sure that anybody who actually cares to have an informed opinion on this subject has understood the assertions in the OP for some time. Earlier in this thread it is stated that the fundamental principal of "pro life" is that life begins at conception which isn't really true. The true fundamental principle is that we are morally obligated to actively and diligently pursue the potential for life. The whole "life begins at conception" thing is just the most conservative arbitrary point that modern people can convince themselves is reasonable.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having such arbitrary standards for your own life but when you want to force everybody into alignment for such reasons you just end up looking foolish. If I were pro-life I'd immediately give up on the scientific rationalizations. Concede all rational ground to "pro choice" since anybody who cares about that sort of thing is "pro choice" anyways and embrace the "it has a soul" and "God knows best" angle. Get out of legislation and force people to make the personal decision you want with guilt.
On July 05 2013 07:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Functionally, ending a test tube baby is very similar to ending a regular baby, barring one aspect: the baby's chance of survival.
Not strictly true, it's simply that most fertilised eggs that don't make it go without ever making themselves known whereas if you have a round of IVF treatment you're generally aware of it. Embryos get discarded by the womb all the time for whatever biological reasons but when they're still just a handful of cells you wouldn't notice it.
On July 05 2013 07:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Functionally, ending a test tube baby is very similar to ending a regular baby, barring one aspect: the baby's chance of survival.
Not strictly true, it's simply that most fertilised eggs that don't make it go without ever making themselves known whereas if you have a round of IVF treatment you're generally aware of it. Embryos get discarded by the womb all the time for whatever biological reasons but when they're still just a handful of cells you wouldn't notice it.
Huh. That's actually really interesting. Doesn't defeat the point I made, but still an interesting anecdote. Turns out near half of all babies are "naturally aborted." I wonder if that puts a hard cap on the success rate of IVF treatments.
I'm honestly against IVF, for a couple reasons. I'll keep this brief, because I don't know how much I can truly offer outside of ethical musing.
It's pitfalls are obvious: I'll name just one that comes to my mind. If I had 10 babies conceived, but only wanted one, I can't choose one over the other ten. Who am I to judge which little egg and sperm combo will be better in some way than another? That would be the same as choosing 10 men of the exact same dimmensions, putting them all in plastics sacks to cover their bodies, and then choosing one to live, while sentencing the others to death.
It's unnecessary: If a womb is closed, I'm sorry, but there are other ways of getting children if a person truly wants them. Things like surrogate mothers aside, which I find as another pitfall that should be mentioned, if a family wants a child, they can adopt, they can foster, they can do any number of things that help society in an ethical fashion. Basically, to get one child, one has to kill 10 other possible ones, which misses the point of having children.
On the flipside, I just want to say that the arguments for pro IVF tend to go along the same lines as abortion, saying it is better for society to let women have the choice and that it helps women with issues conceiving who would normally be a perfect home for children.
Generally I have little experience when it comes to the procedures outside of what I learned in school though.
On July 05 2013 10:04 docvoc wrote: I'm honestly against IVF, for a couple reasons. I'll keep this brief, because I don't know how much I can truly offer outside of ethical musing.
It's pitfalls are obvious: I'll name just one that comes to my mind. If I had 10 babies conceived, but only wanted one, I can't choose one over the other ten. Who am I to judge which little egg and sperm combo will be better in some way than another? That would be the same as choosing 10 men of the exact same dimmensions, putting them all in plastics sacks to cover their bodies, and then choosing one to live, while sentencing the others to death.
It's unnecessary: If a womb is closed, I'm sorry, but there are other ways of getting children if a person truly wants them. Things like surrogate mothers aside, which I find as another pitfall that should be mentioned, if a family wants a child, they can adopt, they can foster, they can do any number of things that help society in an ethical fashion. Basically, to get one child, one has to kill 10 other possible ones, which misses the point of having children.
On the flipside, I just want to say that the arguments for pro IVF tend to go along the same lines as abortion, saying it is better for society to let women have the choice and that it helps women with issues conceiving who would normally be a perfect home for children.
Generally I have little experience when it comes to the procedures outside of what I learned in school though.
When you try and get your partner pregnant naturally there will be a decent chance of embryos being discarded by chance because not every embryo makes it. If you rolled a dice to see which ones got implanted with IVF that'd be no different. If your argument is that it shouldn't be up to you that doesn't mean IVF is bad, it means you don't like deciding.
As for not having children that you are capable of having through medical advances because adoption exists, that's a very strange argument. Let's try it for glasses, "It's unnecessary: If your eyes are shit, I'm sorry, but there are other ways of sensing what is around you if a person truly wants that. They can ask people, they can waggle a stick, they can echo locate or they can get a guide dog". True, but if someone wants to see but their eyes aren't working properly and we have the technology that'll fix that and let them see then why insist they use some alternative?
Doesn't this just draw the same line as late term abortion in which there is a low but not super low chance of survival for a early delivery. Something like by the 24th week with a ton of medical intervention a fetus can be saved although it has a low chance of a good quality of life.
As that line gets pushed further and further down as possibly keeping younger and younger clumps of soon to be human mass becomes possible if you can raise a baby completely in a test tube is there a prerogative to terminate that before it comes to fruition.
Personally the way I see this as long as abortions are possible and miscarriages are a thing for one reason or another. I see it's up to the people who are going to take care of that possible person to bring it into this world or not, I look at quality of life if it's not there rather snuff something out before it develops consciousness and identity to which i hold as the rule of if something is a person or not.
Humans already turn evolutionary stresses on it's head if we have the ability to control conception and gestation then shouldn't we have the choice? Where is the obligation? Obligation to the chosen created possible human then you would have to draw the line of what does it mean to be human. I draw it as consciousness and identity now the argument against that is that people may be paralyzed and conscious but unable to express it for one reason or another. Valid but then i'd just add the clause that then they must be able to survive without heavy assistance what sort of life is it to be trapped in a body unable to interact with the world. If you need heavy assistance then it's up to your care takers to keep you or not.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what?
I think the uniqueness means that scientifically it's impossible to say anything but that it is a human life, but my beliefs come from the idea that life begins at conception (regardless of how conception is achieved) and that every human being has a soul and thus deserves equal rights and representation as every other person.
Obviously we've created a huge problem with IVF, in my opinion. We have these people who we've put in stasis... it's kind of disturbing. Ideally, the further creation of embryos would be outlawed and a system to "adopt an embryo" would be enacted.
I am really interested how you approach cloning, as there is no need for conception there and yet human being comes to existence.
I think it is extremely interesting to watch ethical systems based on tradition squirm as science offers them more and more problems they cannot consistently deal with.
By cloning, do you mean twins? If so than that has nothing to do with it...
What has science offered that makes the ethical position that life begins at conception untenable? If anything, science has supported that position.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
If natural isn't your argument, then why is this any different than regular conception? Where are they toying around? What is bad about it? Who is harmed and why? What disadvantages does this pose? You say that the people interested in this should adopt instead. Should the people who plan to conceive in whatever you define as a non 'toying around' manner be persuaded to adopt instead?
Put forth a position!
Well, a big problem would be that some of the embryos created never get used. They are just sitting there in stasis. The people being hurt are the embryos themselves. Also, I think IVF devalues human life in the embryonic form.
Also, a lot of these attempts were unsuccessful, meaning we sacrificed human beings for the cause of perfecting the use of human beings.
You do realize that a very large majority of the embryos naturally conceived and implanted don't ever come to term right? Every day girls become pregnant and lose the embryo at an early stage without ever knowing about it. I don't have my gynecology books before me but i'm pretty sure around 95% of successful fecundation don't lead to a baby.
IVG is not significantly less successful than the normal process in creating life.
Every single human being that has ever lived or will ever live will/has die(d). You know that, right? So why then do we generally oppose human experimentation without consent, and sometimes oppose it even if consent was hypothetically given? They're gonna die anyway. How is it different if they died because of an "unfortunate accident" in a lab experiment or if they died from being stuck by lightning?
There is a difference between something dying because it just didn't make it, and something being manipulated with great risk of death being a result of said manipulation.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
And what the hell, just about any human cell is a "living organism with human DNA", but that doesn't make it a human. Can I now not kill my own cells, because they're also human by your definition? Also, living organisms with "human DNA" are actually capable of developing into stuff which is not human. This happens all the time and is usually spontaneously aborted, and when it's not it often kills the mother or is born dead/deformed. Somatic cells are capable of developing into a human with some screwing around, anyway. In fact there's tissue replacement technology being researched on that basis.
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.
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.
If he doesnt have to take care of these children that he doesnt want he shouldnt have to (in this instance that is), but I believe that the mother should be allowed to keep the eggs should she want them simply because she has no other option of getting biological children. In general I think anyone that wants to abort should be able to whatever the case (in a time limit though I believe).
I don't think you know what "organism" mean, Dr. Catocalipse.
@sc2superfan101 You are entitled to you opinion and to argue the merits of your opinion but please don't start making snide/sarcastic or otherwise ill mannered remarks Comments like the above lead only to a derailed discussion with people making personal attacks If you disagree on his idea of what organism means then elaborate as to how rather than remarks like the above
I don't agree with your beliefs or ideas but until that point you had conducted yourself with a modicum of decency even if you didn't give due respect to the opinions of others
I don't think you know what "organism" mean, Dr. Catocalipse.
@sc2superfan101 You are entitled to you opinion and to argue the merits of your opinion but please don't start making snide/sarcastic or otherwise ill mannered remarks Comments like the above lead only to a derailed discussion with people making personal attacks If you disagree on his idea of what organism means then elaborate as to how rather than remarks like the above
I don't agree with your beliefs or ideas but until that point you had conducted yourself with a modicum of decency even if you didn't give due respect to the opinions of others
I don't see what the problem with that statement was. You're incredibly over-sensitive if you really take issue to that.
I don't think you know what "organism" mean, Dr. Catocalipse.
@sc2superfan101 You are entitled to you opinion and to argue the merits of your opinion but please don't start making snide/sarcastic or otherwise ill mannered remarks Comments like the above lead only to a derailed discussion with people making personal attacks If you disagree on his idea of what organism means then elaborate as to how rather than remarks like the above
I don't agree with your beliefs or ideas but until that point you had conducted yourself with a modicum of decency even if you didn't give due respect to the opinions of others
I don't see what the problem with that statement was. You're incredibly over-sensitive if you really take issue to that.
You're right its not that big a deal in of itself But take a moment to consider the thread topic and how such topics usually end up. If Catocalipse is an actual doctor though and I missed that then my mistake ^^;
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."
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.
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.
I don't know why you feel so stubbornly inclined to include a cell/bunch of cells into the definition of 'human'. Oocytes, zygotes, embryos, stem cells, or even just random somatic cells, with the right type of help can all become humans, but they are not humans, they only have the potential to become one. They can become any number of things, humans being just one of them. They are not humans, they can become humans if we want them to, and perform the necessary procedures (and nothing goes wrong). It's like wood, you can make wood into a wardrobe, but it needn't become one, it can become a door, too! The same is true for an embryo, it can become a human (multiple humans, even!), somebody's replacement bone marrow, a different human (replace/alter DNA), a tumor, or even dead stuff.
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'm guessing your objection is a religious one, but if it's a moral one rather than religious one, then I imagine your stance is that abortion is detrimental to society as a whole. If that's not it then I just don't understand where you're coming from.
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.
I actually see this topic having more connections to things like stem cell research instead of the classic abortion debate.
At the end of the day, these clusters of cells have no level of consciousness or self-awareness and have zero chance to survive without extreme levels of outside intervention by other humans. Things like IVF and stem cell research can drastically improve the lives of people that are actually living. It blows my mind that people against these things value the lives of hypothetical individuals more than the lives of people that actually exist and are trying to function in society right now.
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.
This problem only presents if you argue that rights are derived from containing DNA. Certainly adults have human DNA and have rights, likewise children, despite being immature versions of adults, have human DNA and have rights. But it does not necessarily follow that embryos have rights, despite being immature versions of adults, have rights simply because they have human DNA. If one were to argue that a degree of independent existence is needed too then a child would qualify but an embryo would not.
On July 05 2013 08:56 KwarK wrote: Except if you're going by unique DNA then twins don't count and if you're going by left in a womb then IVF doesn't count.
Genetic mechanisms are actually so robust that, according to a 2012 study, monozygotic twins can have hundreds of genetic differences acquired in the fetal stage. The first division of the egg into two cells isn't necessarily when it becomes two embryos. So there doesn't have to be a point where there's 2 indistinguishable embryos. Also, even given the same genetic material, there are differences between twins in what genes are activated. It depends what you count as a genetic difference, the mere presence of molecules or whether they're actually used to code for proteins the body uses. (Although for argument's sake you can engineer an arbitrary cell which is identical to another up to the physical limits of quantum entanglement. That is, for any egg you can in principle copy and play three-card Monte with it against the universe.)
Maybe it would be also fruitful to think about higher-order monozygotic embryos like triplets. Not that I'm agreeing with MadProbe. I want to figure out the logic here.
Uniqueness is weird to be involved here. Sexual reproduction means millions of ways of combining things which themselves are composed of millions of combinations of base pairs. And not only do they mutate into different combinations, they mutate into different numbers of combinations so you can't even count how many possible chromosomes there are because don't have a fixed length. They can change even change in length. A fertile man can personally make half a trillion sperm in his life. Uniqueness is not special under these conditions. I hope to understand and hopefully undermine people's tendency to flock to it.
On July 05 2013 08:11 KwarK wrote: Why would the mother have deciding control over what happens to the embryo if it's not inside her and it's composed of genetic material from both mother and father? It doesn't belong to her any more than it does to him. They both contributed one cell.
It's again not that cut and dry depending on what level you agree to look at it... at. They each gave one cell. But one cell is as much larger than the other as SKT T1's budget was larger than MBCGame HERO's. In terms of the number of chromosomes, the contribution looks even. However, chromosomes aren't all equal; for instance, if the man is contributes a Y sex chromosome instead of an X, that's about a third of the size of the girl's X chromosome in terms of base pairs. (Much smaller, as far as we can tell, in terms of actual genes). Also, the man may have actually given up quite a few mL of cell syrup for the IVF procedure, which by mass is more than the eggs, even though the material ends up not being used.
But I agree that even if you had that information about who contributed, there's no way to mold it into an algorithm for deciding which party gets power of attorney or something. Genes in a cell aren't shares in a company. Because the genetic material ultimately doesn't have to come from two donors; you can engineer it to be whatever.
On July 05 2013 07:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Not forever. Nobody wants to adopt a test tube, so if the parents don't want it, the cells get defrosted.
Don't people buy choice embryos or is that just something I saw on Law and Order?
On July 05 2013 07:16 Sermokala wrote: saying "life begins at conception" isn't some specifically created time frame thats the problem you seem to be having. Its not about if they have souls at some point or another its that their life begins at conception.
On July 05 2013 08:44 MadProbe wrote: the biological difference between a single embryo cell and a sperm/egg cell is pretty big
I will get to this line in a second.
and occurs at a specific point in time, when the sperm penetrates the egg.
That is not a specific point in time. It's not a black box where one instant it's a sperm and an egg and the next instant it's a fertilized egg. The fact that one sperm gets inside the egg doesn't mean you will have a viable egg. The egg could fail to close and suffer polyspermy. It takes time for the DNA from both cells' nuclei to combine and after that happens it still might not be a viable egg.
the main difference is that an embryo has a full set of unique human DNA, whereas the the sperm and eggs each have 1/2 a set of DNA
That is not particularly striking from a biological standpoint. We are talking about cells that are not only all eukaryotic, they're all gametes or zygotes and they're all from the same species. The difference between gametes and zygotes is ploidy (sounds more like Lewis Carroll than science). The difference is one set of copies of genetic material. Sperm and eggs have one copy. A fertilized egg has two copies.
For comparison, the difference between the masses of a human sperm and a human egg is that the egg is approximately 160,000 times larger than the sperm. Another way, the difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg's mass is 0.000625%. This is about the largest gap in cell size that exists in the human body. The addition of that 0.000625% of mass is on the order of 10^-14 kilograms. The sperm's DNA is on the order of 10^-15 kilograms.
It is not convincing to me to draw a line where the difference is 10^-15 kilograms when the situation looks like a typical Sorites paradox.
What about a parthenogenic embryo or diploid egg? With no contribution from a sperm?
At any rate. Red blood cells have no nucleus, and therefore no genomic DNA. And they total about a quarter of all human cells (Unless you count bacteria, which are about 90% of the cells on a person, in which case red blood cells are around 2.5% of all cells on a person.) But they're indispensable to your survival. What's the insight gained by counting chromosomes?
-- and an embryo, left in the womb, would grow to become a person,
Not necessarily, but it would try to eventually grow, with help from the placenta, into a fetus with the potential of becoming a sentient human.
whereas lone sperm and eggs just die.
That's all any life does is die. It's what sperm and eggs do if you dump them outside of the body. It's what sperm and eggs do if you leave them inside a doomed, mortal body. It's what an embryo does if you defrost it. It's what an embryo does if a woman carries it to term and it grows up and witnesses as many decades as it has fingers.
The ability for something to die is characteristic of its being alive, and it's no surprise that sperm and eggs are alive given that to date nobody has overturned the cell theory of life. The idea that life in some way begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg is inconsistent with the fact that the sperm was alive, the egg was alive, and unless you were lost somewhere very gross in the Deep Web, the people who the sperm and egg came from were also alive. The least surprising thing in the world should be that a fertilized egg is alive. Of course it's alive, it's a cell.
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.
This problem only presents if you argue that rights are derived from containing DNA. Certainly adults have human DNA and have rights, likewise children, despite being immature versions of adults, have human DNA and have rights. But it does not necessarily follow that embryos have rights, despite being immature versions of adults, have rights simply because they have human DNA. If one were to argue that a degree of independent existence is needed too then a child would qualify but an embryo would not.
What level of "independence" is required for a human being to have rights, and in what way is that not completely arbitrary?
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.
Then I guess what you're saying is people have a duty to endanger themselves for others so long as it's not too great a risk, which is fine, and we'll leave it at that.
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.
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.
This discussion of whether it is a human is getting us nowhere. Provide a definition of 'human', so we can actually get somewhere.
Also, stages of development mean nothing. There's plenty of stages of development before 'human'. Oocytes, and Graafian follicles are also stages of development towards a human. The process begins long before the embryo stage. Why is there this sudden problem with not producing a human from an embryo, but oocytes can die all they like? They're both stages of development. There's just a huge double standard. 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?
With regard to point 2 in the OP, as the only one of 24 eggs that made it, I'm pretty glad my mom decided to have enough of them that I'm allowed to be here today. She was unable to have kids normally (had 3 miscarriages before that) and it was going to be her last attempt before resorting to adoption.
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.
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.
I think independence has nothing to do with it. There realistically is no tangible line you can draw between human and not human (at least while we're not using a concrete definition). It's just one cell earlier, or one later, or even one electrochemical interaction earlier, or one later. There is no such line. If we used birth as a marker we could kill it 5 minutes before birth but not just after (as it's not human yet), which is silly. If we want to continue discussing whether embryos are human, I think a concrete definition is necessary, though I doubt a sensible one can be found.
In fact, I think whether it's human or not is a silly way of thinking about it, and it's one which is only entertained due to the fact that religion is usually involved in the discussion. I think the real cutoff should be whether it's a member of our society or not. We don't give animals rights (or at least not human ones), because they're not members of our society. They're not one of 'us'. At the end of the day, laws are something erected for the benefit of specific groups. Do we really want to give rights to embryos, which are not conscious in the way we are (and certainly not as much as an animal is), at the expense of fully fledged members of society that actually contributes something to it?
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.
On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote: @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.
e: grammmmar
Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them.
For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it.
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.
But in no country I am aware of do you have a legal obligation to sacrifice your bodily integrity to save the life of your child. If your child is afflicted by leuchemia you do not have a legal obligation to undergo a bone marrow transplant. Even if you happen to be the only viable donor in the entire world. You don't even have to donate a kidney or a piece of your liver should your child need it, even though (as far as I am aware) those particular operations are statistically safer than child birth. The embryo needs to parasite on the mother to survive, and no in other context is this ever mandated. Peoples bodies are in general considered their own even if their work or their property is not. Thus you can be legally forced to provide your children with food, but not with bone marrow or kidneys. From this perspective I see no reason why the mother should be forced to let the embryo parasite on her or undergo a statistically significant risk to her own person by giving birth to it if she doesn't want to.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor.
I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
I don't know, man. I was created this way, 26 years ago, and I don't really feel like I was toyed with back then. It was my creation. I'm not sure what there is to be against. Maybe if I didn't want to live I'd be against it by default instead.
On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote: @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.
e: grammmmar
Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them.
For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it.
I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race.
In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights.
I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOG
Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.
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
You are just moving the controversial and arbitrary place to draw the line in what I noted earlier is a classic Sorites paradox. There's no difference between saying "human life begins at conception" and saying "I am defining humans as organisms with human DNA" except that you've changed the language. Language isn't a reason; it's a tool, an abstraction. The only thing you've changed is instead of people asking you "why does human life begin at conception?" they are just going to ask "why does a human being mean an 'organism' with human DNA?" The fogginess of our language (specifically "organism") isn't an argument one way or another.
There is still a line to draw when you use your definition of "human being" in one context to include an embryo or zygote, and the rest of society which when they use the term "human rights" have a narrower definition that more people agree with. Like the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was written before we knew DNA was a double helix. If we are to use your definition of human, either that declaration needs updating, or you have to connect the dots and demonstrate why it still makes sense with a new definition.
The way you've structured your logic actually deconstructs itself. I will start with the idea of an organism, which as I said is a foggy concept that you are presenting as a cut and dry concept. Life basically has no analogs, nothing more fundamental or familiar that we can use as a reference to understand it better. The fact that you (and biology-online) think a virus is an organism, for instance, is not a unanimous view (I won't even bring up plasmids). It is still widely maintained that all life on Earth is cellular. Viruses have no response to stimuli. They copy themselves, but they do so chemically, not in an emergent way like cellular life (mitosis, sexual reproduction). It's more like they accumulate molecules until there's a duplicate. Viruses depend totally on host cells for their life cycle.
(Yes, I said life cycle, even though I don't consider viruses to be life. This is because I know the difference between using convenient language to describe nature and macheting my way through with invented definitions.)
You say a human is an "organism that has human DNA." If you're willing to accept that viruses, which totally depend on host cells, are organisms, then your umbrella is wide enough that sperm are humans. They're organisms, albeit single-celled, and they have human DNA. They respond to stimuli, which is even more than we can say of viruses. They grow and reproduce and die. (Eggs qualify also, but as I mentioned earlier in my beautifully crafted post, a fertile male can make half a trillion sperm in his life, and with the estimate that more than 100 billion humans[1] have ever lived I wanted you to internalize that with your definition there have been approximately 10^22 humans in history. That number is on the same order as the number of stars in the universe.)
On July 06 2013 03:08 sc2superfan101 wrote: 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 don't know the definition of a heap of sand, but I'm sure one grain doesn't count. The fact that you don't have a strict definition of something doesn't mean you can't decide obvious cases. If I asked you to define the line between brightness and darkness and you didn't know anything about lumens or magnitude or wavelength or intensity or power, you could still tell me that it was bright, not dark, when I shone a maglite in your face.
[1] Actually the hidden point here is that deciding how many humans have ever lived is a Sorites paradox much the same as deciding at what stage of development a fetus becomes a human. Because in order to count how many humans have ever lived, you have to be able to point to exactly where the species began, which is contrary to evolution and indeed reality works.
On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote: @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.
e: grammmmar
Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them.
For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it.
I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race.
In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights.
I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOG
Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.
So the conferment of rights is predicated on the potential to be human? That sounds rather specious, particularly as molecular biological manipulation becomes more and more advanced.
On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote: @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.
e: grammmmar
Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them.
For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it.
I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race.
In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights.
I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOG
Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.
So the conferment of rights is predicated on the potential to be human? That sounds rather specious, particularly as molecular biological manipulation becomes more and more advanced.
You think that somehow being altered at the genetic/molecular level makes you somehow less (or more) deserving of rights?
On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote: @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.
e: grammmmar
Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them.
For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it.
I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race.
In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights.
I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOG
Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.
So the conferment of rights is predicated on the potential to be human? That sounds rather specious, particularly as molecular biological manipulation becomes more and more advanced.
You think that somehow being altered at the genetic/molecular level makes you somehow less (or more) deserving of rights?
No, I'm referring to extended manipulations of human reproductive material that might someday have the potential to grow a human.
What's interesting, or rather sad, is that I mostly see this debate on two fronts.
Humans are special (and as such so are potential humans) as deemed by Religion
vs.
Rational thought and deduction, accompanied by the opinion that Humans aren't special
From what I understand, in America and most progressed countries (and least more and more) the idea is that everyone has the freedom to practice their religions in private, but that religion should have no bearing (and especially not one more so than another) on law and public policy, such as this topic.
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.
Obviously I can't speak for the majority of ALL biologists, but of those I do know (mostly medical microbiologists), I'd say probably every last one would agree with me. Well, depends which skin cell, some epidermal skin cells could be considered close to dead, so not those.
Humans are a large organism, composed of organ systems and various tissues working symbiotically. Technically we have a huge symbiotic reliance with bacteria, too. You could say humans would have a rather tough time staying alive without their symbiotic bacteria, too. That doesn't mean that a single human cell isn't an organism. Hell, mitochondria within our own cells, are basically a different organism too (they have their own DNA) and current theory suggests they are derived from ancient bacteria whom eukaryotes have had a long running symbiotic relationship with since. A single cell is certainly not a human, though, but is an organism nonetheless.
I've already pointed out why your definition is obviously not good. And I've already explained why I don't need a definition, and you do. As for my definition of human, I don't have one, I just work on my intuition of what is or isn't human. It generally works well enough for my purposes. For yours it's obviously not good enough, because you need a definition others can agree with, and then use it to show them that an embryo is, indeed, a human, by that definition (which they agree with, hence convincing them). AI researchers spent a good couple decades trying to define 'chair' with a symbolic approach (i.e. a definition) and then realized it was a waste of time because they couldn't do it and started using statistical methods, neural networks, etc. to try and achieve their goals istead. So if you want to try defining 'human' satisfactorily, good luck.
On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote: @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.
e: grammmmar
Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them.
For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it.
I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race.
In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights.
I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOG
Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.
Well, there is obviously something unique about humans. We built cities, and have forum discussions, etc. Most organisms don't do this. I don't see why that should grant them any rights, though. Do you have a reason for why you think all humans should have rights, or is it just something you feel should be granted to them?
On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote: @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.
e: grammmmar
Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them.
For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it.
I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race.
In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights.
I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOG
Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.
Well, there is obviously something unique about humans. We built cities, and have forum discussions, etc. Most organisms don't do this. I don't see why that should grant them any rights, though. Do you have a reason for why you think all humans should have rights, or is it just something you feel should be granted to them?
He feels that because humans have done all that, it somehow grants them rights for things that are completely uncorrelated. More precisely, he feels that way because he believes in a magic being that said it was so. Literally, the reason is "because he said so".
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.
Obviously I can't speak for the majority of ALL biologists, but of those I do know (mostly medical microbiologists), I'd say probably every last one would agree with me. Well, depends which skin cell, some epidermal skin cells could be considered close to dead, so not those.
Okay, and they would all agree with you that an embryo is definitely not a human? What definition of human would they use, btw?
Humans are a large organism
I thought they were millions of symbiotic organisms?
A single cell is certainly not a human, though, but is an organism nonetheless.
Of course not. But you can't say what human is (or are unwilling to). I ask once again, are you a human?
I've already pointed out why your definition is obviously not good.
Indeed. But you've not established the alleged facts that you used to support said position.
And I've already explained why I don't need a definition, and you do.
I presume your statement on burden of proof was this. I reject it, but I'll let you believe that if you'd like. Once again, are you a human?
As for my definition of human, I don't have one, I just work on my intuition of what is or isn't human. It generally works well enough for my purposes.
You don't know what it is, but you're sure that your intuition is correct? What is your "intuition"?
On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote: @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.
e: grammmmar
Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them.
For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it.
I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race.
In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights.
I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOG
Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.
Well, there is obviously something unique about humans. We built cities, and have forum discussions, etc. Most organisms don't do this. I don't see why that should grant them any rights, though. Do you have a reason for why you think all humans should have rights, or is it just something you feel should be granted to them?
He feels that because humans have done all that, it somehow grants them rights for things that are completely uncorrelated. More precisely, he feels that way because he believes in a magic being that said it was so. Literally, the reason is "because he said so".
That's a good way to have a conversation.
Shouldn't we treasure those things that are unique and beautiful? A rose and a dandelion are both flowers and have nearly nothing to offer to us. But still, we believe that one of those is more valuable than the other. Roses are much more difficult to grow and are more pleasing to the eye and have a smell that cannot compare to it's yellow coated counterpart. Doesn't that create a difference in value between the two? If you came to my yard and killed dandelions, I wouldn't think anything of it. My roses, on the other hand, and I would be crushed. My perception of the rose imparts value upon it, and, to me, that gives it certain rights. In this case, namely protection.
Much in the same way, our experiences in the natural world have taught us that people are unique and beautiful and special. We've peeked into every corner of this planet, and we haven't found anything remotely like us. Like it or not, we are different from the rest of the animals. If not in some inherent value given to us by some higher being, then in our capacity to forego temporary pleasures for our meaningless endeavors. We are the first animal we've found to step foot on another planet; we have yet to find anything like us.
We can even take a step back and apply this to all life on our planet. Earth is unique, in our solar system, maybe even the galaxy or entire universe. We've sought to find something else out there, but as of yet, our search has been fruitless. If there is something out there, we have yet to find it, and it us. Our experience is that we are frighteningly alone in a vast, empty universe.
Doesn't that impart on us some inherent value? Are we not more valuable than the rocks and the dust and space that makes everything else? If we are, then why would we seek to destroy something so precious?
On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote: @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.
e: grammmmar
Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them.
For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it.
I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race.
In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights.
I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOG
Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.
Well, there is obviously something unique about humans. We built cities, and have forum discussions, etc. Most organisms don't do this. I don't see why that should grant them any rights, though. Do you have a reason for why you think all humans should have rights, or is it just something you feel should be granted to them?
He feels that because humans have done all that, it somehow grants them rights for things that are completely uncorrelated. More precisely, he feels that way because he believes in a magic being that said it was so. Literally, the reason is "because he said so".
That's a good way to have a conversation.
Shouldn't we treasure those things that are unique and beautiful? A rose and a dandelion are both flowers and have nearly nothing to offer to us. But still, we believe that one of those is more valuable than the other. Roses are much more difficult to grow and are more pleasing to the eye and have a smell that cannot compare to it's yellow coated counterpart. Doesn't that create a difference in value between the two? If you came to my yard and killed dandelions, I wouldn't think anything of it. My roses, on the other hand, and I would be crushed. My perception of the rose imparts value upon it, and, to me, that gives it certain rights. In this case, namely protection.
Much in the same way, our experiences in the natural world have taught us that people are unique and beautiful and special. We've peeked into every corner of this planet, and we haven't found anything remotely like us. Like it or not, we are different from the rest of the animals. If not in some inherent value given to us by some higher being, then in our capacity to forego temporary pleasures for our meaningless endeavors. We are the first animal we've found to step foot on another planet; we have yet to find anything like us.
We can even take a step back and apply this to all life on our planet. Earth is unique, in our solar system, maybe even the galaxy or entire universe. We've sought to find something else out there, but as of yet, our search has been fruitless. If there is something out there, we have yet to find it, and it us. Our experience is that we are frighteningly alone in a vast, empty universe.
Doesn't that impart on us some inherent value? Are we not more valuable than the rocks and the dust and space that makes everything else? If we are, then why would we seek to destroy something so precious?
You can treasure things that are unique and beautiful without making the whole of humanity suffer for your perspective. All value is arbitrary, as well as rights. So no, the rose doesn't have rights, you simply want to protect it. Your wants and desires do not equal rights. Every organism is unique, any reason you give to why one is more special than the other is only perspective, and likely a function of self preservation. A species or highly-related group of organisms will always give preference to their kind over others. If they didn't, they likely wouldn't have evolved to where they are. We don't know if we are alone until we've seen the whole universe, and you can easily find some graphic that demonstrates the fraction of the observable universe compared to the estimated total size. We have only seen a fraction. Anyways, no that doesn't impart inherent value. We are only more valuable to rocks and dust because we say so, and that's not much of a reason. Also, we are not seeking to destroy, but rather create, and we are inefficient. However, only by continuing that process can we become more efficient. Instead, I think it's naive to look at every gamete and pine for it to live. We are human, but that doesn't mean we should strive to birth as many others as possible (not anymore at least, since we are no longer evolving, and have no threats outside of threats from space or ourselves, and since space and resources are in question). If you believe that I could hold a sperm and egg together and when I push them together and they fuse it's human and when i pull them apart it's not, then that's fine, albeit ridiculous. The real issue is that it's not practical or helpful to anyone, so much that could be gained is lost.
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Well you also have things like genes that you pass along. An example I have encountered myself is that of women who carry BCRA genes. This highly increases the chances you have for getting cancer. There is something like a 50% chance that you will pass the gene over to you offspring. With IVF they can potentially reduce this chance to 0. It is very easy to say just adopt, but it is a very touchy subject to force decisions on others.
On July 05 2013 08:11 KwarK wrote: Why would the mother have deciding control over what happens to the embryo if it's not inside her and it's composed of genetic material from both mother and father? It doesn't belong to her any more than it does to him. They both contributed one cell.
Why does the embryo's actual location matter?
If she was intended as the recipient of the implantation of the embryo, then of course she should be in control of what happens to it, just as if the embryo had been created naturally.
Just because the conception was artificial, it does not mean that the woman loses the rights to do with it what she wishes.
Think about it. What you are suggesting basically discriminates against women who otherwise cannot conceive. A woman who is capable of natural conception can consent to conceive, and then revoke consent at any point. Why should a woman who cannot naturally conceive, or who has chosen artificial conception, not have this same right?
On July 05 2013 08:11 KwarK wrote: Why would the mother have deciding control over what happens to the embryo if it's not inside her and it's composed of genetic material from both mother and father? It doesn't belong to her any more than it does to him. They both contributed one cell.
Why does the embryo's actual location matter?
If she was intended as the recipient of the implantation of the embryo, then of course she should be in control of what happens to it, just as if the embryo had been created naturally.
Just because the conception was artificial, it does not mean that the woman loses the rights to do with it what she wishes.
Think about it. What you are suggesting basically discriminates against women who otherwise cannot conceive. A woman who is capable of natural conception can consent to conceive, and then revoke consent at any point. Why should a woman who cannot naturally conceive, or who has chosen artificial conception, not have this same right?
The location matters because the mother's right to withdraw consent is directly built upon its dependence upon her body. She can say "I will no longer give you my womb to live in/my nutrients to consume/my oxygen to breathe and if that kills you then that's unfortunate but these things were never your right, they are my body and control of them is mine". If it's an embryo sitting in a test tube then the mother can exercise as much control over her body as she likes without it in any way impacting the embryo because the embryo isn't inside her womb. I don't believe there is any right for a woman to control an embryo, only over her own body. What I am suggesting in no way discriminates against women who cannot naturally conceive, both have the exact same rights to their own body and both have the same right of abortion once pregnant.
On July 05 2013 08:11 KwarK wrote: Why would the mother have deciding control over what happens to the embryo if it's not inside her and it's composed of genetic material from both mother and father? It doesn't belong to her any more than it does to him. They both contributed one cell.
Why does the embryo's actual location matter?
If she was intended as the recipient of the implantation of the embryo, then of course she should be in control of what happens to it, just as if the embryo had been created naturally.
Just because the conception was artificial, it does not mean that the woman loses the rights to do with it what she wishes.
Think about it. What you are suggesting basically discriminates against women who otherwise cannot conceive. A woman who is capable of natural conception can consent to conceive, and then revoke consent at any point. Why should a woman who cannot naturally conceive, or who has chosen artificial conception, not have this same right?
The location matters because the mother's right to withdraw consent is directly built upon its dependence upon her body. She can say "I will no longer give you my womb to live in/my nutrients to consume/my oxygen to breathe and if that kills you then that's unfortunate but these things were never your right, they are my body and control of them is mine". If it's an embryo sitting in a test tube then the mother can exercise as much control over her body as she likes without it in any way impacting the embryo because the embryo isn't inside her womb. I don't believe there is any right for a woman to control an embryo, only over her own body. What I am suggesting in no way discriminates against women who cannot naturally conceive, both have the exact same rights to their own body and both have the same right of abortion once pregnant.
Perhaps I'm not understanding the specifics.
This only really comes into play when the man and the woman disagree over the fate of the embryo, correct?
Situation 1:
Father wants embryo destroyed. Mother wants it implanted.
Solution:
Implant it, the father should not have to support the child should it come to term.
Situation 2:
Father wants embryo implanted. Mother wants it destroyed.
Solution:
Either do nothing, or destroy it. Either way is essentially the same unless the mother changes her mind. Really only comes down to practicality of solution. Essentially though the mother is "in control" since the father has no way of getting what he wants.
Situation 3:
Father wants embryo implanted in a surrogate (who is agreeable). Mother wants it destroyed.
Solution:
Implant it in the surrogate, mother should not have to support the child if it comes to term. This situation is different from the original, though, as the intended recipient is not the same.
In almost every situation where the mother is the intended recipient of the embryo the only fair thing is to base the fate of the embryo on her wish, because it is HER body that will be used for the gestation. If the mother is not the intended recipient then the situation is different.
Arguments like these make the "Life begins at conception" have some hefty asterisks involved. Will it naturally come to term un-interfered with, or must there be a subsequent involvement of surgical insertion and other means?
I think the contracts signed with IVF should involve as much legal language and care as do prenuptial agreements and business contracts. It should be explicit in the payment to the IVF center what rights the woman and man have to the eggs. Implant by mutual agreement only, fully the property of the woman, or terminate by either one. With the law in US what it is, the man is liable for child support in most cases if it is his child. With the threat of financial burden and criminality for nonpayment, it's in his best interest to choose only clinics that make it explicit in the contract.
Fertilized eggs outside the womb vs fertilized eggs on their way to implantation in the uterus will emerge as the principal difference in the moral attitude of the pro-life crowd. Considering the costs involved, fertilizing multiple eggs for implantation is justified. Comparing the first IVF birth in the 1970s to the multitude of births by normal means prior to that represents a significant difference.
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.
Obviously I can't speak for the majority of ALL biologists, but of those I do know (mostly medical microbiologists), I'd say probably every last one would agree with me. Well, depends which skin cell, some epidermal skin cells could be considered close to dead, so not those.
Okay, and they would all agree with you that an embryo is definitely not a human? What definition of human would they use, btw?
As for my definition of human, I don't have one, I just work on my intuition of what is or isn't human. It generally works well enough for my purposes.
You don't know what it is, but you're sure that your intuition is correct? What is your "intuition"?
My point is you can't define 'human' satisfactorily because it is a word that is used to describe things which we collectively feel is a human based on our intuition. Generally this works because in most cases what is being talked about appears human to all parties involved. What appears to be a human to you, might not appear a human to another, e.g. an embryo. There is no definition you can find to bridge this gap, hence why I think there is no satisfactory definition. And you do have the burden of providing a definition if you want to convince anyone else using it. And, just so you don't ask the obvious yet again, I would definitely refer to myself as a human, if it wasn't obvious.
Besides, I think the 'is an embryo a human?' discussion has gone on long enough and doesn't seem to be yielding any fruits. If to you an embryo is a human, then I don't think I can find a way of persuading you otherwise, just because it's an arbitrary distinction. Likewise you won't persuade me, either, so this is pointless. And I don't think it matters whether it's a human either, because even if we assume it is, killing humans is sometimes beneficial, hence we do it. Even if it were a human, that would still not mean there wasn't reason to kill it. Here's an argument which may convince you:
Definition #1 The word benefit is intended in the "to get what you want" sense of the word, not in the, "become happier" sense of the word. Hence, to 'benefit' is meant as 'to fulfill your desires'. And a beneficial event is, thus, one which brings desires to fulfillment.
Definition #2 The word harm is intended in the sense "to have something you desire to not happen, happen". You can work out what harmful is intended to mean, I imagine.
Premise #1 Beneficial things which are not harmful should be done. Conclusion #1 Thus, abortions, should, when beneficial, and not harmful, be performed (P #1).
Premise #2 The only ones who may be significantly influenced by an abortion are the parents or the embryo(s). Premise #3 We should only consider whether an abortion is beneficial or harmful to those significantly influenced by it in determining whether it is a "beneficial thing which is not harmful". Premise #4 A brain is necessary to have desires. Premise #5 Embryos, especially early embryos, lack a brain. Conclusion #2 Embryos do not have desires (P #4 #5). Conclusion #3 Embryos are unable to benefit, or come to harm, as they do not have desires (C #2 & Def. #1 #2).
Premise #4 If the mother wants an abortion, she stands to benefit from it (See Def. #1) Premise #5 If the father wants an abortion, he stands to benefit from it (See Def. #2) Conclusion #4 If both the mother and father want an abortion, then it is beneficial to the mother and father and does not harm the embryo (P #4 #5 C #3). Thus, it is beneficial and not harmful and should, hence, be performed (P #1 #2 #3 C #1 #4)
If you're willing to loosen up Def. #2 of harm to "significant suffering (not encompassing 'your genetic material' being used to produce humans)", then you can make a similar case for why in-vitro embryos should be implanted if either of the two parents wishes to, because one would benefit and the other would not come to harm under this definition.
Ultimately though, I like the "I'm not an embryo and will never become one, so feel free to make/kill as many as you want, I don't care" school of thought much better.
On July 06 2013 02:00 sc2superfan101 wrote: [quote] 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.
Obviously I can't speak for the majority of ALL biologists, but of those I do know (mostly medical microbiologists), I'd say probably every last one would agree with me. Well, depends which skin cell, some epidermal skin cells could be considered close to dead, so not those.
Okay, and they would all agree with you that an embryo is definitely not a human? What definition of human would they use, btw?
Humans are a large organism
I thought they were millions of symbiotic organisms?
A single cell is certainly not a human, though, but is an organism nonetheless.
Of course not. But you can't say what human is (or are unwilling to). I ask once again, are you a human?
I've already pointed out why your definition is obviously not good.
Indeed. But you've not established the alleged facts that you used to support said position.
And I've already explained why I don't need a definition, and you do.
I presume your statement on burden of proof was this. I reject it, but I'll let you believe that if you'd like. Once again, are you a human?
As for my definition of human, I don't have one, I just work on my intuition of what is or isn't human. It generally works well enough for my purposes.
You don't know what it is, but you're sure that your intuition is correct? What is your "intuition"?
My point is you can't define 'human' satisfactorily because it is a word that is used to describe things which we collectively feel is a human based on our intuition. Generally this works because in most cases what is being talked about appears human to all parties involved. What appears to be a human to you, might not appear a human to another, e.g. an embryo. There is no definition you can find to bridge this gap, hence why I think there is no satisfactory definition. And you do have the burden of providing a definition if you want to convince anyone else using it. And, just so you don't ask the obvious yet again, I would definitely refer to myself as a human, if it wasn't obvious.
If you can't define it than how are you sure that your intuition is generally correct? And what qualifies you as being human? Do you have any reason other than the absolutely worthless "I feel it is true, therefore it is true" argument?
Well... you're now changing the goalposts. You're saying that I have to find a definition that everyone agrees with? That's an absurd standard.
Besides, I think the 'is an embryo a human?' discussion has gone on long enough and doesn't seem to be yielding any fruits.
Concede it is a human and that opens up all sorts of ugly questions. This is precisely the reason most pro-choice people don't concede that it is human, not on any scientific standards. They do it because to do otherwise creates problems for their beliefs.
And I don't think it matters whether it's a human either, because even if we assume it is, killing humans is sometimes beneficial, hence we do it.
An opinion you share with all the great mass-murderers of history. Now, I'm not saying you are like them; just that the idea that human life is in no way sacred and has no inherent rights or value is exactly what leads to societies where human's are slaughtered by the millions.
Definition #1 The word benefit is intended in the "to get what you want" sense of the word, not in the, "become happier" sense of the word. Hence, to 'benefit' is meant as 'to fulfill your desires'. And a beneficial event is, thus, one which brings desires to fulfillment.
Definition #2 The word harm is intended in the sense "to have something you desire to not happen, happen". You can work out what harmful is intended to mean, I imagine.
Premise #1 Beneficial things which are not harmful should be done. Conclusion #1 Thus, abortions, should, when beneficial, and not harmful, be performed (P #1).
Murder, should, when beneficial, and not harmful (to me), be performed. Abortion is pretty harmful to the fetus, so I assume you can't be saying: not harmful to anyone at all.
Premise #2 The only ones who may be significantly influenced by an abortion are the parents or the embryo(s). Premise #3 We should only consider whether an abortion is beneficial or harmful to those significantly influenced by it in determining whether it is a "beneficial thing which is not harmful". Premise #4 A brain is necessary to have desires.
LOL, nice use of selective definition. I suppose if you conflate "benefit" with "desirable"... only that is stupid:
Nowhere in the definition of the word: beneficial is any indication that "fulfillment of desires" is what it means. Your entire argument is based on misdefining a word and then using that definition to engage in clever wordplay.
Ultimately though, I like the "I'm not an embryo and will never become one, so feel free to make/kill as many as you want, I don't care" school of thought much better.
"I'm not a Jew, black, woman, homosexual, Asian and will never become one...."
I think you can see why that one is pretty bad.
Also, I notice that you backed off of the "all my biologist friends say" argument pretty quickly.
Premise #1 Beneficial things which are not harmful should be done. Conclusion #1 Thus, abortions, should, when beneficial, and not harmful, be performed (P #1).
This premise is pretty contentious, not to mention very vague, because it equivocates between semantic benefit and moral benefit. It gets more contentious when you define "beneficial" to mean (roughly) having to do with satisfying mental desires of some kind.
Even if I were a utilitarian and accepted your first premise, I would add the following clarification to your statement about brains and desire: one must have a functioning brain in order to possess desires. With that in mind:
Suppose we figure out a way to put fully grown, functional adult human beings in suspended animation for an arbitrary period of time. Suppose that this limit of time is fixed by the limits of our technology at the time (i.e. if you go into suspended animation, it must last at least X amount of time, because the machine can only reverse the process at a certain rate, or something). This person is unconscious for roughly X amount of time. During this time, they cannot be woken, but, so long as they remain in the machine, they will be alive in the sense that their tissues, cells, neurons etc. will not be destroyed. They will, however, be essentially inoperative for as long as the suspended animation lasts. Do you think killing this subject of suspended animation should be permitted if one has a fleeting desire to do so? Consider that, from the point of view of the subject, the process is identical to going to sleep and then waking up X time later, with virtually no side-effects beyond, perhaps, some stiffness. And suppose that we know that our technology has a 99.9999% success rate in granting full recovery after suspended animation.
I really hope that you wouldn't want to kill this person, even though their "desires" do not technically exist except as abstract counterfactuals (i.e. if subject was not in suspended animation, they would desire not to die). But that's not good enough to satisfy your argument.
I mean the general problem with consequentialist theories of ethics which rely on functionalist models of personhood to deal with the "value" of agents is that, from the point of view of "functionalism" there is no difference between an unconscious person and a rock with respect to their desires. The best you can do at that point is to introduce some sort of arbitrary appeal to having the "capacity" for desires which would (likely?) be to not be murdered. But then you're just being very ad hoc so it's not really very convincing.
On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote: I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post.
After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care? If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't.
Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother.
On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote: I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post.
After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care? If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't.
Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother.
I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about African American slavery and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless YOU or a member of your family is going to be enslaved, why do you care? If you are a white person with a white lineage, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the white slaveowner in many cases. It would be a different story if white people could be enslaved, but we can't.
Leave this matter SOLELY to the people who are potential slaves.
On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote: I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post.
After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care? If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't.
Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother.
and you are a woman i suppose ... ? ... then why do you care?
On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote: I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post.
After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care? If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't.
Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother.
I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about African American slavery and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless YOU or a member of your family is going to be enslaved, why do you care? If you are a white person with a white lineage, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the white slaveowner in many cases. It would be a different story if white people could be enslaved, but we can't.
Leave this matter SOLELY to the people who are potential slaves.
White people can and have been enslaved. By the way, this thread is about IVF, embryos and abortion. Instead of taking my post and replacing words and creating a strawman argument, why don't you come up with your own thoughts and ideas?
On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote: I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post.
After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care? If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't.
Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother.
I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about African American slavery and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless YOU or a member of your family is going to be enslaved, why do you care? If you are a white person with a white lineage, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the white slaveowner in many cases. It would be a different story if white people could be enslaved, but we can't.
Leave this matter SOLELY to the people who are potential slaves.
White people can and have been enslaved. By the way, this thread is about IVF, embryos and abortion. Instead of taking my post and replacing words and creating a strawman argument, why don't you come up with your own thoughts and ideas?
Because your argument is absurd. The idea that people who are not directly affected by something shouldn't care or have opinions regarding it is ridiculous. I happen to take very seriously the issue of whether terminating pregnancies constitutes a moral action or not, because it happens a lot and because it relies on some very tenuously defined terms (like personhood). Same goes for the examples in the OP about IVF/embryos.
I'm never going to be incarcerated, but I still think that the death penalty is wrong because it's immoral. It doesn't matter that I'm not on death row.
On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote: I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post.
After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care? If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't.
Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother.
I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about African American slavery and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless YOU or a member of your family is going to be enslaved, why do you care? If you are a white person with a white lineage, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the white slaveowner in many cases. It would be a different story if white people could be enslaved, but we can't.
Leave this matter SOLELY to the people who are potential slaves.
White people can and have been enslaved. By the way, this thread is about IVF, embryos and abortion. Instead of taking my post and replacing words and creating a strawman argument, why don't you come up with your own thoughts and ideas?
Because your argument is absurd. The idea that people who are not directly affected by somethingshouldn't care or have opinions regarding it is ridiculous. I happen to take very seriously the issue of whether terminating pregnancies constitutes a moral action or not, because it happens a lot and because it relies on some very tenuously defined terms (like personhood). Same goes for the examples in the OP about IVF/embryos.
We aren't talking about any old thing here. We are talking about abortion and the philosophy behind it, specifically concerning IVF and Emrbros. The basic fact is, you are poking your nose into the affairs of people, making a judgement about a decision that doesn't involve you, and screaming to anyone who will listen about how the person is committing murder. How is that not absurd?
I'm never going to be incarcerated, but I still think that the death penalty is wrong because it's immoral. It doesn't matter that I'm not on death row.
On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote: I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post.
After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care? If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't.
Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother.
I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about African American slavery and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless YOU or a member of your family is going to be enslaved, why do you care? If you are a white person with a white lineage, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the white slaveowner in many cases. It would be a different story if white people could be enslaved, but we can't.
Leave this matter SOLELY to the people who are potential slaves.
White people can and have been enslaved. By the way, this thread is about IVF, embryos and abortion. Instead of taking my post and replacing words and creating a strawman argument, why don't you come up with your own thoughts and ideas?
Because your argument is absurd. The idea that people who are not directly affected by somethingshouldn't care or have opinions regarding it is ridiculous. I happen to take very seriously the issue of whether terminating pregnancies constitutes a moral action or not, because it happens a lot and because it relies on some very tenuously defined terms (like personhood). Same goes for the examples in the OP about IVF/embryos.
We aren't talking about any old thing here. We are talking about abortion and the philosophy behind it, specifically concerning IVF and Emrbros. The basic fact is, you are poking your nose into the affairs of people, making a judgement about a decision that doesn't involve you, and screaming to anyone who will listen about how the person is committing murder. How is that not absurd?
I'm never going to be incarcerated, but I still think that the death penalty is wrong because it's immoral. It doesn't matter that I'm not on death row.
Strawmanning again?
First, an analogy isn't necessarily a straw-man.
Second, we make judgements about situations that don't directly involve us all the time.
Third, I have yet to see a single argument in this thread that amounts to someone screaming "MURDERER!"
I think it is hard to see some of these things in black and white. For example, IVF has brought children to families who really wanted children and who became wonderful parents. The same is true of surrogacy. Of course, there are all types of complications and all types of problems that can arise-such as some of the hypothetical postings of the OP. So it is hard to say it's always right or wrong to use these methods to have a child. As for abortion, I think it is in a different category, but others might not see it that way.
On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote: I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post.
After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care? If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't.
Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother.
I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about African American slavery and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless YOU or a member of your family is going to be enslaved, why do you care? If you are a white person with a white lineage, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the white slaveowner in many cases. It would be a different story if white people could be enslaved, but we can't.
Leave this matter SOLELY to the people who are potential slaves.
White people can and have been enslaved. By the way, this thread is about IVF, embryos and abortion. Instead of taking my post and replacing words and creating a strawman argument, why don't you come up with your own thoughts and ideas?
Because your argument is absurd. The idea that people who are not directly affected by something shouldn't care or have opinions regarding it is ridiculous. I happen to take very seriously the issue of whether terminating pregnancies constitutes a moral action or not, because it happens a lot and because it relies on some very tenuously defined terms (like personhood). Same goes for the examples in the OP about IVF/embryos.
I'm never going to be incarcerated, but I still think that the death penalty is wrong because it's immoral. It doesn't matter that I'm not on death row.
The reasoning is quite different imho. In case of the death penalty nobody is contesting that the condemned are actually alive or not. The morality issue only involves whether 'we' have the right to take live away. In case of IVF the issue is whether the 'condemned' are alive or not. This is because one instance can be objectively defined while the other cannot on this dimension.
I didn't see this thread before. It's a pretty interesting topic.
I think if you're going to have moral implications with throwing away a stasis-fetus (my new scientific term), you take issue with IVF in the first place as it prevents the unrealized potential of the fetus. When the eggs are removed and fertilized outside of the womb any sort of potential actualization is impossible unless placed back in a womb, so aborting them outside of the womb doesn't really change their potential, and is therefore no-more morally unacceptable than fertilizing outside of the womb in the first place. But of course that depends on whether or not you find IVF as immoral.
Lets say I want to make a sandwich with my girlfriend for later because we're not hungry now. I have bread and she has meat and so we put them together and create one. In order for that sandwich's potential to be realized, as satisfying our hunger, it has to be eaten. So lets say this sandwich never expires, and we decide we don't want to eat that sandwich because our taste buds have changed and no longer like bread and meat. The sandwich's potential to satisfy our hunger won't be actualized if we never eat it, and so its no different if it just sits there on the counter or if it's tossed in the trash can. You could only say that throwing the sandwich away is immoral if you accept that making a sandwich and not eating it is immoral.
As with the case in the OP about the couple that split up, it just seems like lack of foresight among the IVF company to not consider couples breaking up and having them both hold title to their embryo properties.
I kinda wanna get back to Kwark's example of the couple. Rights to your own genetic material seem like they'd be obvious but are they? I mean, when I sneeze there's genetic material in my boogers but I wouldn't scream "THOSE BOOGERS ARE MINE! NO ONE ELSE CAN HAVE THEM!!!" But by the same token, the state seems to recognize some genetic rights in that you have to get a warrant for DNA unless given willingly and biological parents seem to get the benefit of the doubt over adopted ones.
Practically speaking, could the woman just have the children and also never be allowed to ask the father for child support for said children?
As far as actual genetics go, once a sperm and egg mix their DNA, all sorts of crazy recombination stuff happens so, yeah, the actual proteins that make up the DNA came from the father and mother (but the base pairs of DNA are the same for all humans) If we're talking about the specific pattern of those proteins, it is unique and belongs to neither the mother nor the father.
So I agree with Kwark that a mother has the right to abort simply because she doesn't want to share her resources anymore. She has a right to her own body. But as far as a fertilized egg outside a womb, by what right does either parent claim something that is completely unique? Simply that they spewed it out their genitals?
In the case of the couple, I would say neither of them has any more right to that egg than the other. And what rights they have over said embryo are tenuous at best. Perhaps even only existing because of whatever contracts they signed with the clinic that extracted and fertilized the egg. If the contract itself doesn't specify any use rights, then it seems like that would be something they'd have to decide on their own in arbitration. Or perhaps even the clinic has more use rights based on the contract than them both and it decides what happens.
Also, has anyone mentioned artificial wombs? They're technically theoretical but I think they're close enough to reality that it's at least relevant to discuss them...although I'm not sure it's useful. But now we have a scenario where you don't need mama's womb. We can go straight from test tube to a fancy bigger test tube and make a sentient, relatively independent human without ever having to even think about the parents past the time they ejaculate/ovulate.
I was under the impression that, even though the state needs a warrant to get a DNA sample from you, they're able to still utilize a DNA sample if it's somewhere public (like on a coffee cup you threw into the trash and they discovered) or in the open. I don't think rights to one's genetic material really make any sense per se; if we had a computer that randomly constructed DNA sequences, if one happened to come up that was equivalent to yours, you wouldn't necessarily have any right to it because you had nothing to do with it from a causal point of view. The difference with IVF is that there is at least a causal relationship between parents and embryo.
On July 13 2013 05:29 Shiori wrote: I was under the impression that, even though the state needs a warrant to get a DNA sample from you, they're able to still utilize a DNA sample if it's somewhere public (like on a coffee cup you threw into the trash and they discovered) or in the open. I don't think rights to one's genetic material really make any sense per se; if we had a computer that randomly constructed DNA sequences, if one happened to come up that was equivalent to yours, you wouldn't necessarily have any right to it because you had nothing to do with it from a causal point of view. The difference with IVF is that there is at least a causal relationship between parents and embryo.
Mother Father Clinic
Who has more rights outside of anything stipulated in a contract?
EPT
(although I never tried or tested the quality of my sperm) to know how painful it can be not being able to get pregnant "the natural way" and maybe thinking "they should adopt or cope with it" is as bad as denying someone his or her heart surgery.
