I don't typically hear people die, but ok. Do you have anything else you want to discuss, now that we're finally back in reality? Maybe you'd like to address the one point that actually matters and I've made repeatedly. Why is humanity insufficient for something to be a person?
How am I back in reality?
Show me the difference between a Zygote/Embyro and the Terri Schavio case.
Show me the difference between a Zygote/Embyro and the Terri Schavio case.
Humanity: the quality of being human
Human: belonging to the human species
These are my definitions, though references are available upon request for those who do not know how to use www.merriam-webster.com.
My position hasn't changed. I simply summarized my point into one line for simplicity so you couldn't convolute it any more.
How did I convolute it?
Again, how am I back in reality?
Show me the difference between the Terri Schavio Case and a zygote/embryo/fetus?
Answer my questions please.
Again, how am I back in reality?
Show me the difference between the Terri Schavio Case and a zygote/embryo/fetus?
Answer my questions please.
No. Your question is a diversion, nothing more. It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of abortion. My question IS the issue surrounding abortion. If you won't address it, then you have effectively ceded that to be human is to be a person, thus abortion is murder.
Whats the difference betweene Terri Schavio and a fetus?
Terri Schavio just had a brain stem left, her body was alive. She had nervous system and would react to stimuli. It'd be a involuntary reaction just like blinking.
How is this different than a zygote? Or a Embryo? Or a Fetus?
My position is simply that we cannot determine that a fetus is not a person using any known set of criteria. Thus, we must assume that humanity is sufficient for personhood.
If thats true then we most extend that to zygotes, embryos and fetuses... even Terri Scahvio... Right?
Terri Schavio just had a brain stem left, her body was alive. She had nervous system and would react to stimuli. It'd be a involuntary reaction just like blinking.
How is this different than a zygote? Or a Embryo? Or a Fetus?
My position is simply that we cannot determine that a fetus is not a person using any known set of criteria. Thus, we must assume that humanity is sufficient for personhood.
If thats true then we most extend that to zygotes, embryos and fetuses... even Terri Scahvio... Right?
Yes. The difference, currently, is that those with no upper brain activity are still accorded rights currently, while zygotes and embryos are not.
At what point does a fetus become a human being. At what point does it become wrong, and murderous? At what point are we killing another human being? And on those questions, who are we to decide at which point the abortion occurs, and at which point the murder occurs?
In my opinion, and many others, they are one and the same, since at the moment of conception (for the #2 Medical school person, Tabb, this is when the sperm and egg form the zygote upon fusing), you have a human being. Do you think that having a brain qualifies the baby as being human? Hardly- since it's merely an organ, albeit more complex than say, the liver, but an organ, nonetheless- merely another defining character of a physical description of a human- wow.
So that leaves us with the fact that since the brain is the defining point of becoming human, then so are the kidneys, the fingers, the liver, heck- anything formed of cells! Looks like we have a human from conception, using your very own logic!
I'm sure that the human you're (you're, as in abortion people in general, unless you're a doctor who carries out abortions) killing would be quite opposed to his/her death, should he manage to develop speaking capabilities before developing his brain (go with me here), because at least then, they could tell you to back off. Ignoring the slightly silly sentence mentioned previous, looking at the evidence, and the ethics, it is quite easy to say that because a fetus hasn't developed a brain, or 5 fingers, or something else ridiculous benchmark-worthy, they aren't human- but then, who are WE to decide what makes someone human? If you ask me, anywhere along the 9 month period, right from the word go (read: conception), you have a human on your hands. Why? Because there's more to a human thant physical organs.
Instead of sitting there rolling your eyes, why don't you SAY why you disagree? This is the exact childish behavior I'm talking about that makes a discussion with you so ridiculous.
At conception, a "distinct" human life does not occur. How do you think identical twins form? After the initial fertilization, the blastomeres from any of the 2-32 cell stage can be split off from the developing blastocyst, and can form a complete individual. This event is the common cause for identical twins. In addition, the forming embryo with extra-embryonic tissues can be further divided, and form a complete individual. It isn't until about day 14 when gastrulation occurs does a human embryo with extraembryonic tissue lose its ability to be totipotent, and becomes pluripotent.
From day 1 to day 14, the zygote/blastocyst/embryo do not have anything "individual" about them, since those cells are totipotent. Therefore, from day 1 to day 14, multiple individuals can be created from the same series of cells, hence there is nothing "individual" about those steps in gestation. How can those cells be called an "individual" when they can be removed from the developing blastocyst/embryo and be able to create another individual?
The idea that at conception, that a single individual is formed is false, and is based on a false premise. So then, where does personhood/individuality begin? Is it at day 14 when the embryo has lost its ability to be totipotent? If so, then we are being subjective to when personhood/individuality starts. If not, then how can a totipotent clump of cells be called an individual?
The life is distinct from the mother, correct? That's all I'm saying. They do have something unique about them: their genetics. This is what obviates their distinction and individuality.
Yes.
Please clarify. Are you saying distinct genomes are a necessary condition for individuality? If so what about identical twins? Or are you saying that the zygote is genetically different from the the mother, and therefore is an individual? If so, then that statement completely ignores the lack of individuality of the zygote, since until day 14 it is totipotent.
I am stating that it's an individual with respect to the mother. Totipotency in no way implies that the zygote is not an entity distinct from its host.
The relationship of individuality to the mother is secondary to the totipotency of the blastocyst/embryo. You said a "distinct human life is formed" at conception. This is not true to the actual zygote/blastocyst/embryo itself. One fertilized egg does not equal one human individual. You are basing you're entire point that individuality is created because of genetic differences between mother and zygote, when this only represents one relationship. One must consider whether the zygote /blastocyst is an individual to itself, since we are talking about a multicellular clump of cells that are totipotent. You are overgeneralizing that since you feel a zygote/blastocyst/embryo is individual to its mother, that this is sufficient to conclude a zygote/blastocyst/embryo is an individual. This simply does not include the most important relationship, individuality to itself.
As I've said numerous other times, the distinction is between the zygote and the mother. All that I need demonstrate is that the zygote is not part of the mother's body, as this is the primary argument for allowing abortion. The zygote is very much distinct from the mother, thus the point holds unless you want to strip personhood from all twins, triplets, and so on.
So? I'm not arguing that "primary argument," don't pin points on me. I'm saying that human individuality does not have an objective start point, ie in your case at conception. Since we cannot state an objective start point, any start point is subjective, and is viable in the view of the person of the opinion. Therefore, abortion lies in the beholder, deciding where life/individuality/personhood starts.
Individuality cannot occur when multipe copies of an "individual" can be generated from the original "individual," and create the same individual. In this case multiple copies of the same blastomere/blastocyst/embryo are not individual, since they would be the exact copy of the derived blastomere/blastocyst/embryo, phenotypically and genetically. Now, once a zygote/blastocyst/embryo becomes more developed, one can differentiate between the ones derived from the original due to phenotypical changes, but not when they are at the zygote/blastocyst/embryo stage.
Phenotypically, even identical twins are different. Only once do twins have the same phenotype including consciousness, thoughts, and behavior, one could consider them as non-individuals. But is that even possible to occur? Tough to say, when one has to consider things like a soul vs biology of the brain.
I agree with everything but the last sentence. Legally, this is currently true. However, this is a morally/ethically relativist view that I simply cannot accept. There IS a point at which the zygote/embryo/fetus is a person. The failing is in our ability to define it. Thus, since we cannot logically exclude them from personhood, we must grant them personhood based solely on their humanity. This is very similar to the arguments in the aliens thread: our inability to test or prove/disprove a hypothesis has absolutely no effect on the validity of the hypothesis. Since we cannot even logically define 'person' at this point, all we can do is wave our hands regarding concepts of perceived consciousness, ensoulment, or what have you - none of these forms a sound logical basis for granting rights.
Are you trying to tell me that we don't? Can hardly prove either way, to be honest, but the fact that we don't know leaves a lot to be held accountable for if we do, and we're murdering other humans...
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter