The Elephant in the Room

[kmoney]

How do you tell the difference between a person and a dead body? Heartbeat and brain activity. Certainly many of the cells in the person may still be alive even though they have been declared dead. Why would it not make sense to use the same criterion for determining personhood at the beginning of life?

A dead body is a "former person", a fertilized egg is a "person to be". You shouldn't treat either lightly, but neither should have the full rights of a PERSON.

Could there not be a difference between not having those things because you haven't developed them yet but will if given time and someone who had and then lost them?

 

[Yorzhik]

No. It's not simply "size an appearance". It has NOTHING we associate with a person, no head, no heart, no blood, no chest no lungs. NOTHING. You're being a moron for pretending that discriminating between a SINGLE CELL and a recognizable person makes any sense whatsoever.

You are a moron for claiming you aren't basing your opinion on size and appearance and then going on to discriminate based on size and appearance!

Why don't you tell us the real characteristic you use to decide which humans are persons? Would anyone else be morally wrong for having a different opinion?

I'm calling an 8 week old embryo a person at the very least, do you think I can tell ANY of the characteristics you have listed in this entire post at that stage?

That's a nice opinion. Would anyone else be morally wrong for having a different opinion?

 

[fool]

No. It's not simply "size an appearance". It has NOTHING we associate with a person, no head, no heart, no blood, no chest no lungs. NOTHING.

It has a mother and father and sisters and brothers and grandparents and aunts and uncles.
It is also perfectly normal for a zygote to not have head or a heart or a face.

You're being a moron for pretending that discriminating between a SINGLE CELL and a recognizable person makes any sense whatsoever.

You're a biologist right?
Why do you cling to this doublethink when you know the mechanics of the process perfectly well?

 

[Alate_One]

It has a mother and father and sisters and brothers and grandparents and aunts and uncles.

And so do all of my cells.

It is also perfectly normal for a zygote to not have head or a heart or a face.

The fact that its normal has nothing to do with it. WHEN do you choose to assign an irrevocable right to life to a product of human reproduction is not a biological question.

You're a biologist right?
Why do you cling to this doublethink when you know the mechanics of the process perfectly well?

It isn't "doublethink". If you're going to assign personhood (which is a non-biological term) to a single human cell then you may as well assign it to all human cells. Because in a very real biological sense they are not truly different from each other.

 

[Alate_One]

Could there not be a difference between not having those things because you haven't developed them yet but will if given time and someone who had and then lost them?

There is a difference. As I said, a zygote is a human-to-be by any definition while a dead body is a former human. However that doesn't mean you should necessarily make a zygote the equivalent of a baby.

 

[Alate_One]

You are a moron for claiming you aren't basing your opinion on size and appearance and then going on to discriminate based on size and appearance!

Do medical professionals not base alive or dead person or not person based on the criteria I listed? If it's "appearanceism" then why isn't anyone complaining about it?

Its a physiological difference. It's not just "looks" its FUNCTIONALLY different.

Why don't you tell us the real characteristic you use to decide which humans are persons? Would anyone else be morally wrong for having a different opinion?

I don't believe it would be morally wrong to hold that a zygote is a person, because we aren't arguing biology, we're arguing morality, on which science cannot make a clear statement.

I do personally think it is wrong to define personhood at birth. You all want to make an argument that the beginning of development is the obvious place to define a person. I think you're trying to use biology to make things easy for yourself when there's no logical (or biological) basis to equate a single cell with a person.

That doesn't mean there's nothing at all special about fertilized eggs, but we need to consider carefully before throwing the terms person and right to life around.

I think its a slippery slope to make the argument for zygotic personhood when you can't be sure it will even develop into something like a person. It could become a hydatidiform mole or fail to develop at all.

Once you get to a certain point in development (around the 8th week) it becomes obvious its either going to develop into a baby (you can tell if it has a head at least) or die. At that point you can be reasonably sure its a person and will continue to develop into one.

 

[fool]

And so do all of my cells.

Your cells aren't you, in the case of the zygote that one cell is him.

The fact that its normal has nothing to do with it.

You guys want to keep pointing out that he's a single cell, I'm gonna keep pointing out that it's normal for him to be a single cell at that point.

WHEN do you choose to assign an irrevocable right to life to a product of human reproduction is not a biological question

You don't want it to be a biological question because it has a very straigtforward biological answer, that you don't like for some reason.
Tell us about that.

It isn't "doublethink". If you're going to assign personhood (which is a non-biological term) to a single human cell then you may as well assign it to all human cells. Because in a very real biological sense they are not truly different from each other.

The fact that we can clone you from any cell in your body dosen't change the fact that when we do that zygote is your brother.

I wish you guys would stop pretending that people somehow emerge from a probability cloud.

 

[fool]

There is a difference. As I said, a zygote is a human-to-be by any definition while a dead body is a former human. However that doesn't mean you should necessarily make a zygote the equivalent of a baby.

The zygote IS the baby.
Why do you want to kill people?

 

[Alate_One]

The zygote IS the baby.

A zygote is not a baby.

Lets try a little moral quandary to clarify this.

You visit an IVF (in-vitro fertilization) clinic. Inside there is a freezer filled with thousands of frozen embryos which are at the (70-100 cell stage) called a blastocyst. In front of the freezer on a table is a newborn baby in a car seat.

A fire starts and all of the workers run out in panic.

Do you grab the newborn? or do you start emptying the freezer into a bag? For the sake of the illustration we'll pretend that you know of another low temp freezer where they can be housed. Remember each box in the freezer could contain hundreds of embryos and you can only choose to grab the child or the embryos.
Which do you choose?

I think your answer will make it plain to you that even you don't actually think zygotes or blastocysts are morally equivalent to babies.

Why do you want to kill people?

Why do you want to make hormone-based contraception into murder?

 

[Alate_One]

Your cells aren't you, in the case of the zygote that one cell is him.

I am MADE of cells. Each cell in my body contains all the instructions for making another human being. Just like the zygote.

You guys want to keep pointing out that he's a single cell, I'm gonna keep pointing out that it's normal for him to be a single cell at that point.

And it being normal has nothing to do with it.

You don't want it to be a biological question because it has a very straigtforward biological answer, that you don't like for some reason. Tell us about that.

Science does not give us moral answers. If you knew about science you'd know that.

Biology gives us MANY options for when "personhood" might begin.

Fertilization
Implantation
Segmentation
Fetal Heartbeat
Neuromaturation
The Quickening
Fetal Viability
Birth

A case can be made for most of these events, though I think it is clearly before birth. Still, choosing the zygote is a moral decision, not a biological one.

The fact that we can clone you from any cell in your body dosen't change the fact that when we do that zygote is your brother.

Indeed, but it would still be a new individual.

I wish you guys would stop pretending that people somehow emerge from a probability cloud.

In a sense they do.

 

[Stripe]

And your point is?

The point was very simple. Detecting a heartbeat or any other physical trait should never be the basis for determining personhood.

We know when the heart starts to beat, even before it is detectable. Its relatively easy to assess developmental stages these days.

Great! It's easy to tell what colour a baby's skin will be before he is even conceived as well.

Because the presence of heartbeat and brainwaves aren't dependent on the individual. Why are you determined to make this into a racial issue? Nothing I've said has anything to do with a characteristic that isn't shared by every human being that has ever lived.

Every human being has all the things I mentioned as well. You're talking about the presence of a heartbeat, I'm talking about the colour of the skin. Everyone has skin and hearts. :idunno:

You're not very good

On what basis do you say that?

Using your ear is not the same as being hooked up to a monitor.

So? Should a lifeguard hook a man up to a monitor before deciding whether his patient is a person or not?

Its not arbitrary. Its when the doctor and nurses decide to stop working on you and declare you dead! If its so arbitrary you need to go start lobbying your hospitals about how the dead bodies there are still people. And yes many, many fertilized eggs do die at a very early stage without any intervention.

What a lame response.

But that's exactly what happens in hospitals every day. You do realize this?

So?

If you believe a zygote is a person then preventing implantation is murder.

You're dealing in non-sequiturs. Preventing a conceived child from implanting is not contraception, it's murder.

That's what "the Pill" and most other hormone based contraceptions do, prevent implantation.

I know.

Why would anyone want to prevent implantation?

When a woman doesn't want to have a child, you can simply prevent implantation. If a zygote is a person then this is murder. Do you get it now?

Yes, I get it. Why would anyone want to prevent implantation?

Its the logical next step for what you're proposing. Of course you don't understand the biology well enough to understand that.

I'll decide what I think the next step should be, thanks. :up:

You CAN'T "move the baby" you must perform an abortion i.e. kill the child. Most will spontaneously abort but some won't.

You're just determined to keep using the word abortion as if it's good and necessary.

Zygotes don't build themselves sitting on a shelf either.

No, they don't. If they are left in the right place and given the right protection they can grow into something even you recognise as human (when he has a heart and a brain you can detect). But if someone interrupts that development, they often die. That's murder.

Why because YOU say so?

No. Is a person not a person because you say so?

There is no biological definition of "a person".

I know. You're the one trying to invent one, not me.

A zygote is a single human cell, just like any one of your skin cells.

You're not very good at this biology stuff, are you? This is the second time you've repeated this obvious misrepresentation. My skin cells have my DNA. A zygote has the baby's DNA. A baby left alone will grow into something even you recognise as a person. My skin cells are just waste and the person remains.

It MIGHT become a baby, it might become a hydatidiform mole, turn cancerous and kill the mother, it might have a chromosomal abnormality and just die.

Or it might be a person that you don't mind killing.

It doesn't fit the definition of a person vs. dead body (which contains LOTS of living cells for a long time) later in life. Using heartbeat and brainwaves is consistent and prevents abortion.

What is it that defines a person as a person?

No. It's not simply "size an appearance". It has NOTHING we associate with a person, no head, no heart, no blood, no chest no lungs. NOTHING. You're being a moron for pretending that discriminating between a SINGLE CELL and a recognizable person makes any sense whatsoever.

Uh .. you are discriminating between a recognisable person and a single. Now you're saying your discrimination makes no sense?

I'm calling an 8 week old embryo a person at the very least, do you think I can tell ANY of the characteristics you have listed in this entire post at that stage? Stop thinking in Dr. Seuss terms and look at this rationally.

Who knows? Doesn't matter? You're using an arbitrary trait to define personhood. I'm using another arbitrary trait to show the truth of your position.

At the cost of being far better than the status quo. where . While you're arguing semantics over a single cell, stages of human development that *everyone* would agree are babies are dying every day because for some ridiculous reason society decided that personhood begins at birth.

Who has decided that? :idunno:

New Zealand doesn't believe that.
America doesn't believe that.

Who are you talking about?

I think they start posting on forums with lots of emoticons and making nonsensical arguments. Also failing to answer a simple question rationally. I feel sorry for your mother.

Wow. Humdinger of a riposte, that. :chuckle:

 

[Alate_One]

The point was very simple. Detecting a heartbeat or any other physical trait should never be the basis for determining personhood.

Then how would YOU determine personhood?

Great! It's easy to tell what colour a baby's skin will be before he is even conceived as well.

Not necessarily. Even if you know the parents it can be hard to tell. Its the magic of quantitative genetics.

Every human being has all the things I mentioned as well. You're talking about the presence of a heartbeat, I'm talking about the colour of the skin. Everyone has skin and hearts. :idunno:

Now you just contradicted yourself. A zygote has neither a heart nor skin. Skin doesn't develop until well after implantation.

On what basis do you say that?

On the basis of what you said above.

So? Should a lifeguard hook a man up to a monitor before deciding whether his patient is a person or not?

Usually he's called the paramedics if there isn't a heartbeat so they can determine that. . . . but what do you think is used to determine if someone is a "person" by the general public?

You're dealing in non-sequiturs. Preventing a conceived child from implanting is not contraception, it's murder.

Then you've eliminated a healthy proportion of the contraception methods.

Why would anyone want to prevent implantation?

So that they don't get pregnant? The same reason you'd want to prevent sperm from meeting egg. It just so HAPPENS that "the pill" can (although doesn't always) prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. But really there would be no way for a woman to know if this were happening. Why don't you just go the catholic way and say all contraception is wrong?

You're just determined to keep using the word abortion as if it's good and necessary.

Abortion is defined as terminating a pregnancy. Even if it is implanted in the wrong place its still being terminated. Note that preventing implantation is not abortion.

No, they don't. If they are left in the right place and given the right protection they can grow into something even you recognise as human (when he has a heart and a brain you can detect). But if someone interrupts that development, they often die. That's murder.

So a woman exercising too much at the wrong time of the month is murder then too.

No. Is a person not a person because you say so?

The definition of a "person", especially when dealing with pre-born humans is a very subjective idea.

I know. You're the one trying to invent one, not me.

No, you have one invented. You're arguing for it.

You're not very good at this biology stuff, are you? This is the second time you've repeated this obvious misrepresentation. My skin cells have my DNA. A zygote has the baby's DNA. A baby left alone will grow into something even you recognise as a person. My skin cells are just waste and the person remains.

Your skin cells can be turned into a baby also with the same DNA as you, but yet it would not be you. They're only waste if you don't put them in the right conditions and perform the right processes.

Who knows? Doesn't matter? You're using an arbitrary trait to define personhood. I'm using another arbitrary trait to show the truth of your position.

You said one skin color vs. another I said heart vs. no heart. An appropriate analogy would be skin vs. non-skin. Which would exclude zygotes again. We are creatures with a physical body, you going to determine personhood by something OTHER than that?

New Zealand doesn't believe that.
America doesn't believe that.

Who are you talking about?

Abortion being legal in the states and NZ . . . not that many people believe that. It's a de-facto situation where rights begin at birth only.

 

[Stripe]

Then how would YOU determine personhood?

Case by case. Generally speaking a person results from natural conception when a man's sperm fuses with a woman's egg creating a distinct, new person. There may be artificial ways in which the same end might be met and there might be cases where the result is not viable, but generally speaking what we have at conception is a person with an eternal soul and spirit.

And all it takes is a few weeks of growth in order for you to agree with my assessment.

Not necessarily. Even if you know the parents it can be hard to tell. Its the magic of quantitative genetics.

And perhaps it's more difficult than you're making out to determine a heartbeat. :idunno:

It's all rather academic, however. Personhood is not determined by the presence or detectability of any physical trait.

Now you just contradicted yourself. A zygote has neither a heart nor skin. Skin doesn't develop until well after implantation.

Yeah, dude, way to miss the point. You're very good at ignoring all the things you say in order to generate a comment that you can mock.

You believe that a physical trait determines personhood. I don't.

Usually he's called the paramedics if there isn't a heartbeat so they can determine that. . . . but what do you think is used to determine if someone is a "person" by the general public?

People generally don't have a spoken or clear definition of what constitutes a person unless they are looking to exclude people from that group.

Then you've eliminated a healthy proportion of the contraception methods.

Contraception prevents pregnancy. Pregnancy starts at conception. Conception. Contraception. Those words are similar for a reason. Let us know when you've figured it out. :up:

So that they don't get pregnant? The same reason you'd want to prevent sperm from meeting egg. It just so HAPPENS that "the pill" can (although doesn't always) prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. But really there would be no way for a woman to know if this were happening. Why don't you just go the catholic way and say all contraception is wrong?

Pregnancy starts at conception. I will decide when I wish to agree with a Catholic view, thanks. :up:

Abortion is defined as terminating a pregnancy. Even if it is implanted in the wrong place its still being terminated. Note that preventing implantation is not abortion.

A woman carrying a baby is pregnant. Implantation is just the arrival of that baby from the conception place at the growing place. Location does not determine personhood. :nono:

So a woman exercising too much at the wrong time of the month is murder then too.

No.

The definition of a "person", especially when dealing with pre-born humans is a very subjective idea.

So on what authority do you insist that a heartbeat or a brainwave is the determining factor?

No, you have one invented. You're arguing for it.

Oh, really? So when you talk about heartbeats and brainwaves that has nothing to do with a biological definition for a person? And what physical or biological trait is it that I use to determine personhood? Feel free to quote what I've said on the matter. :up:

Your skin cells can be turned into a baby also with the same DNA as you, but yet it would not be you. They're only waste if you don't put them in the right conditions and perform the right processes.

OK. When parts of me start turning into people, let me know. :up:

You said one skin color vs. another I said heart vs. no heart. An appropriate analogy would be skin vs. non-skin. Which would exclude zygotes again. We are creatures with a physical body, you going to determine personhood by something OTHER than that?

I do not use physical traits to determine personhood. That's your game.

Abortion being legal in the states and NZ . . . not that many people believe that. It's a de-facto situation where rights begin at birth only.

Rights don't begin at birth in the USA or New Zealand. It being legal to murder the unborn does not mean they do not have rights. It being illegal to murder the unborn does not mean they do have rights. You're going to have to learn what rights are before you try and talk about them.

 

[Granite]

There is a difference. As I said, a zygote is a human-to-be by any definition while a dead body is a former human. However that doesn't mean you should necessarily make a zygote the equivalent of a baby.

This much seems pretty clear-cut to me. I guess the reluctance to agree with this comes from the whole existence-of-a-soul bit.

 

[Yorzhik]

I don't believe it would be morally wrong to hold that a zygote is a person

Well aint that the truth, as we see in a later quote:

I do personally think it is wrong to define personhood at birth.

Yikes! So if it isn't wrong to define personhood at birth, then it wouldn't be wrong to define personhood based on other factors after birth, either. See where using your opinion on which humans are persons gets you? Talk about a slippery slope!

You all want to make an argument that the beginning of development is the obvious place to define a person. I think you're trying to use biology to make things easy for yourself when there's no logical (or biological) basis to equate a single cell with a person.

Since biology gives us an easy answer on when a unique human comes into existence, there's good reasons to use the easy answer. Logically, we are at risk of murdering people if we are wrong about any point after conception. Will the single cell develop into a human with "a head at least"? You don't know, but you're willing to take the risk that killing them is OK :thumb:

Once you get to a certain point in development (around the 8th week) it becomes obvious its either going to develop into a baby (you can tell if it has a head at least) or die. At that point you can be reasonably sure its a person and will continue to develop into one.

But that baby, at a point before it "has a head at least" was continuing to develop from when it was a single cell, right? It was continuing to develop before Alate_One thought it was a person.

 

[Stripe]

This much seems pretty clear-cut to me. I guess the reluctance to agree with this comes from the whole existence-of-a-soul bit.

The atheist positions are all over the place. :dizzy:

One is - biology points directly to the fact that a baby at conception is a person.

Another is - biology points directly away from that idea.

The third is - there is no biological basis for determining personhood and to prove it there is a truckload of biological traits that must be analysed in order to determine who is and who is not a person.

 

[Alate_One]

Well aint that the truth, as we see in a later quote:

Yikes! So if it isn't wrong to define personhood at birth, then it wouldn't be wrong to define personhood based on other factors after birth, either. See where using your opinion on which humans are persons gets you? Talk about a slippery slope!

You misunderstand what I said. I am not saying it is okay to define personhood AFTER birth. I'm saying it is wrong to define it AT birth and NOT before. It's very clear to me that personhood should be determined BEFORE birth. The question is, when.

Since biology gives us an easy answer on when a unique human comes into existence, there's good reasons to use the easy answer. Logically, we are at risk of murdering people if we are wrong about any point after conception. Will the single cell develop into a human with "a head at least"? You don't know, but you're willing to take the risk that killing them is OK :thumb:

The moral equivalence is nonsense. If you read the ethical dilemma I gave to fool I think you'll find that you don't actually believe a baby and a zygote are the same thing.

But that baby, at a point before it "has a head at least" was continuing to develop from when it was a single cell, right? It was continuing to develop before Alate_One thought it was a person.

It may have been continuing to develop, it might not have been. You don't know for sure what exactly any particular zygote might turn into. Once you have a beating heart you can be considerably more assured where things are going.

If you all personally feel that you want to protect zygotes, feel free to adopt embryos (though I don't think anyone here posting is female to carry them)

But making "the pill" into murder, comparing stem cell research to Joseph Mengele and telling parents that are unable to have children that IVF is evil is all completely and utterly wrong. This ridiculously stringent definition will drive people away from any "personhood movement" and no abortions will be stopped at all.

 

[Stripe]

You don't know for sure what exactly any particular zygote might turn into.

A zygote doesn't need to "turn into" anything in order to be a person.

 

[Yorzhik]

You misunderstand what I said. I am not saying it is okay to define personhood AFTER birth. I'm saying it is wrong to define it AT birth and NOT before. It's very clear to me that personhood should be determined BEFORE birth. The question is, when.

No, you said (and reiterated in this very quote) it isn't morally wrong to define a person anytime before birth. By that measure, it isn't wrong to define when a human isn't a person after birth either.

The moral equivalence is nonsense. If you read the ethical dilemma I gave to fool I think you'll find that you don't actually believe a baby and a zygote are the same thing.

Who said they are the same thing? Are you now changing what defines a person to an amount of fondness?

What is it that defines a person in Alate_One's mind? and why should his opinion take precedence over someone else's?

It may have been continuing to develop, it might not have been.

No, according to the context of your comment, it was continuing to develop after it had a head at least. You'll also agree that same baby was continuing to develop before it had a head at least, and not may have been? You were willing to kill that baby.

If you all personally feel that you want to protect zygotes, feel free to adopt embryos

So Alate_One feels that everything will be fine if I just take care of the babies he didn't feel like killing... Does that sound right to you Alate_One?

and telling parents that are unable to have children that IVF is evil is all completely and utterly wrong.

COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY?!?!?! That seems so drastic! Draconian even! I don't suppose you could tease out a quote where I, or Stripe, or fool, has said anything against IVF? I mean, something so severe isn't something you'd make up would you?

 

[Alate_One]

A zygote doesn't need to "turn into" anything in order to be a person.

But if a zygote turns into a Hydatidiform mole, and you called it a person is it still a person? Was it a person and then ceased to be one, or were you wrong about it being a person in the first place?