A victory for fetus rights!!!

Great Debates
141

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
I said human DNA and existence are not sufficient to make one a human being. You agreed, but added that a Zygote has an additional property: it is a collection of human cells. Apparently realizing that this property is also insufficient to make something a human being, you then simply assert that terminating a zygote is the equivalent of killing every cell in your body.

I understand your intuition that a zygote is different from a clump of cells. I think it comes from the fact that a zygote can become a human being. But that suggests that it is not now a human being.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not my intuition…it’s a fact that a zygote is fundamentally different from any other random collection of cells. For one thing, it is a product of the cells of two people. My body can’t generate one on its own, like it can skin cells or blood cells. It has DNA that is unique from the mother’s, It is rapidly and constantly developing into a more and more complicated organization of cells. None of this can be said about any other grouping of cells you will ever run across in the human body.

142

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
It’s not my intuition…it’s a fact that a zygote is fundamentally different from any other random collection of cells. For one thing, it is a product of the cells of two people. My body can’t generate one on its own, like it can skin cells or blood cells. It has DNA that is unique from the mother’s, It is rapidly and constantly developing into a more and more complicated organization of cells. None of this can be said about any other grouping of cells you will ever run across in the human body.
[/QUOTE]

My position was simply that the properties so far alleged were insufficient.

So now you’re adding more properties. Fine. Let’s stipulate that you’ve established that the category of zygote is actually a meaningful category (it denotes something unique). But now you’ve just ad hoc labeled it a human being because it is different. Why? None of the properties individually make something human. Why does this constellation of properties make it a human being?

This, of course, gets at the core of the philosophical debate of what it means to be human. But it seems to me that humanness is less about “rapidly developing into a more and more complicated organization of cells” than about consciousness and free will. YMMV.

143

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
My position was simply that the properties so far alleged were insufficient.

So now you’re adding more properties. Fine.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not adding properties. Those properties exist, and frankly, I thought they were obvious.

It does denote something unique.

Because the human DNA makes it so. It is a stage of human development, not development of anything else.

And that’s your perogative.

144

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I’m not adding properties. Those properties exist, and frankly, I thought they were obvious.
[/quote]

You’re adding properties in the sense that the original claim was that human DNA and existence makes something a human being.

See above. I’m pretty sure we already established that human DNA does not a human make.

145

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
You’re adding properties in the sense that the original claim was that human DNA and existence makes something a human being.

See above. I’m pretty sure we already established that human DNA does not a human make.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe I’m not making myself clear. I’m sorry, but I feel like I have had this conversation about a million times on the SDMB! It is the uniquely human DNA COMBINED WITH the other properties I mentioned that makes a human.

146

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Right, you don’t understand my point. OK, I’ll play along. You asserted that someone who had flat-lined their brain functions was a non-person, just like a fetus. You now allow an exception for such a person, identical in every way to your non-person except for the fact that he will regain his consciousness.
[/quote]
“Flat lined” is not brain death. And the fact that one can recover and one can’t is a huge difference.

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
So, we’re really on the same page. We both grant human beings rights even in instances where they have no brain functions, so long as they will have those functions in the future.
[/quote]
Not at all. A fetus has to develop the capability for such functions; a flatlined person has them, but they are shut down. That’s not the same thing at all.

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
You say that the absence of all brain activity is not an issue so long as the “brain structures” that made him a person are still there. Even though this is inconsistent for you–the exact same “structures” exist for the permanently brain-dead patient, and you don’t grant him the honor of “personhood”–it’s not far off from my own position.
[/quote]
No, again. In a brain dead person - and brain death is always permanent, or it’s not brain death - the brain structures are badly damaged or destroyed; that’s what makes it brain death.

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
I hold that the blueprint for future brain activity already exists in the fetus’s DNA–another definition of structure, just as physically real–and the inexorable progression to consciousness is already underway, just as it is for our hypothermic patient.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you are wrong. It’s an abstract recipe, not a blueprint; it requres growth and interaction with the environment to become anything like a person. You might as well claim that a written description of conception, gestation, and birth is a person.

147

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
What I think is funny about questions like these is that they are clearly designed to be a “gotcha,” because of course it would be completely unreasonable to say yes to any of it.
[/QUOTE]
I assure you that was not my design.

Generally, I like the way you debate. But putting words in my mouth, and assigning intent when there is none, is poor technique.

Never said it was. You are arguing against a position I have not taken.

It was literally impossible?

This is an appeal to emotion. I don’t mean to seem callous, and I am truly sorry that you had to go through this, but whether or not you were sad is a poor way to define what is human.

If a hiker goes missing in a blizzard no effort is spared to retrieve the body. Nature has taken this life. It was not artificially terminated, yet extraordinary measures result. How is this fully human hiker different from a fully human zygote?

148

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
I assure you that was not my design.

Generally, I like the way you debate. But putting words in my mouth, and assigning intent when there is none, is poor technique.

Never said it was. You are arguing against a position I have not taken.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry about that…I don’t mean to put words in your mouth. It just seemed like such a catch-22 question…if I answer “yes” to your questions, I seem like kind of a nutjob…if I answer “no,” then how can I equate the embryo to any other human life, which I would clearly treat differently? I think I am a pretty reasonable person (you may disagree! :slight_smile: ), and while I think that a healthy embryo is a human life worthy of protection, I would not protect a dead embryo at the expense of living people’s emotional comfort.

The embryo was so small, it probably would have been difficult to see with the naked eye, and separating it from everything else probably would not have been possible…I don’t think the embryo surivives the procedure intact.

You are not being callous…I brought up my miscarriages by way of example, actually, not exactly as an appeal to emotion. But you have a point…it IS emotional, and that’s the problem with the entire comparison…you can’t tell another person how they should feel about such a situation. I think the exact problem with expecting someone to treat every early-term miscarriage the way they would a death of a more developed fetus or an already-born baby is that it would be too much of an emotional upheaval for a circumstance that unfortunately happens all too often. And you are right, you can’t use emotion to define human life. That’s actually kind of my point…just because people deal with miscarriage by accepting it and moving on…rather than making a big deal of it with a funeral & burial, etc., does NOT mean that the lost embryo wasn’t human. I personally don’t believe a human life at any stage of development is only worth as much as another human is emotionally invested in it.

I’m not sure if I would support “no effort spared” to find that hiker’s body, even if it was my own husband’s. The problem with the comparison is that you have to make generalities about whether or not a given person (me, in this case) agrees with the usual societal reaction to these types of situations.

149

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Genetic humanness and “being” are insufficient to make something a human being, otherwise my body is made up of millions of tiny human beings.
[/QUOTE]
Which part of “human being” do you think a fetus lacks?

150

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Yes, I do deny it. There is nothing that I can do right now that would advance that cause. Me donating money? I don’t have enough to make a difference, though I do donate to a charity over here related to children’s health.
[/quote]
Look, we may not be far off in our opinions. My reaction was to posters who decided that pro-lifers don’t believe what they say they do. It appears you’re not in that crowd. “I don’t have enough to make a difference,” would that be a satisfactory response for a pro-lifer re: spontaneous abortion research, BTW? (A question, perhaps, for other posters.)

151

[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
Stratocaster, you’re just weaseling here. Brain-dead != comatose. Brain-death != hypothermia. Just like a Sunday afternoon nap != a coma.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, you’re wrong. There are rare but documented cases of people who flat-line (and recover consciousness), which is different than a coma or a nap where brain activity still exists. It means they exhibit zero brain activity. Nothing. A flat line. Sorry, but that’s a fact, whether you find that convenient or not.

152

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Nope, you’re wrong. There are rare but documented cases of people who flat-line (and recover consciousness), which is different than a coma or a nap where brain activity still exists. It means they exhibit zero brain activity. Nothing. A flat line. Sorry, but that’s a fact, whether you find that convenient or not.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, that’s a fact, but it’s still not brain death. It just means that the brain is inactive, not dead.

153

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
“Flat lined” is not brain death. And the fact that one can recover and one can’t is a huge difference.
[/quote]
Come now, don’t waffle. The temporary flat-liner has zero brain activity. He hasn’t the capacity to think, to remember–to exercise any mental activity. Because he can’t, you know, having none. This condition seemed to be an important distinction for you with fetuses.

A person temporarily flat-lining has to develop the capability for such functions as well, clearly. It is simply a different development process. But let’s not dwell on that. The important distinction is that he hasn’t any mental activity at the moment. (I may have mentioned this.)

Nope, you’re wrong. The condition that creates a flat line (don’t call it brain death, if that confuses you) normally results in a condition that irreversible. But not always. Nonetheless–and you can sputter and hem and haw as much as you’d like, and it won’t change this–while the temporary flat-liner is in that condition he is identical to the permanent flat-liner and to early development fetuses in his mental capacity. He has NONE. He can’t think or dream or remember–let’s be frank, he can’t even feel pain in the way a lower animal might. He has NO MENTAL CAPACITY. Sorry, I know this is inconvenient for you.

Abstract? You’re really grasping at straws. The human genome is a some ethereal, shapeless construct, one that could result in a puppy as well as a child, eh? When manifested in a fetus, it isn’t anything more than a written description of an unborn child? Sorry, I don’t think so.

Now, let’s not be defensive when you and I are really largely in agreement. We do not require an entity to currently possess mental activity to assign that entity rights. We both see the existing structure that will lead to a future consciousness as a critical attribute, one that has certain rights incumbent with the owner of said structure. We’re really on the same page. If you were here right now, I’d buy you a Coke.

154

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Yes, that’s a fact, but it’s still not brain death. It just means that the brain is inactive, not dead.
[/QUOTE]
As I mentioned in my last post, don’t use the term “brain death” if it confuses you. It makes no difference to the argument as it relates to that blob of tissue’s current mental capacity.

155

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Which part of “human being” do you think a fetus lacks?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t have a strong (GD) opinion, actually. I was just noting the deficiency of what was offered. If you want my IMHO: I think the question of a zygote’s status is easier than late-term fetus, but my general answer is more or less the same: cognitive functions consistent with what we normally think of as consciousness (self-awareness, self-control, etc.). It’s obviously a great deal more complicated than that.

156

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
As I mentioned in my last post, don’t use the term “brain death” if it confuses you. It makes no difference to the argument as it relates to that blob of tissue’s current mental capacity.
[/QUOTE]
Your judo is weak. You didn’t bring up brain-death, Der Trihs did. You are not in a position to say, “Oh, I didn’t mean brain-death.”

157

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
I don’t have a strong (GD) opinion, actually, I was just noting that deficiency of what was offered. If you want my IMHO: I think the question of a zygote’s status is easier than late-term fetus, but my general answer is more or less the same: cognitive functions consistent with what we normally think of as consciousness (self-awareness, self-control, etc.). It’s obviously a great deal more complicated than that.
[/QUOTE]
Then you’re arguing the concept of “personhood,” which of course you’re free to do. IOW, you’re using the term “human being” as a synonym for “person deserving rights.” But a human being is simply, well a being that is human (as Sarahfeena has ably described).

158

[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
Your judo is weak. You didn’t bring up brain-death, Der Trihs did. You are not in a position to say, “Oh, I didn’t mean brain-death.”
[/QUOTE]
You’re really having a tough time keeping up, aren’t you? A temporarily flat-lined person is different from a brain-dead person with regard to his current mental capacity, how? Go on, I’ll wait.

159

:rolleyes: So to you, there is no & can be no difference between the two, even though the phenomenology is different: the flatliner wakes up with treatment, & the legally brain-dead patient does not, even after a day.

I confess, this seems to me like equating deep sleep with a coma. Do you understand that due to the imperfectness of instrumental analysis of what’s really going on internally, a medical phenomenon should not only be defined by presently detectable activity, but by the capacity for it to change under stimulus?

:sigh: I get it, you’re operating on an obsolete &/or folk definition of what constitutes legally dead. There’s been some development on this in the last few decades.

Please read the wikipedia entry on brain-death, rather than, if I may coin a term, combloviating about things you only think you understand:

Done? No? Read it & come back.

…

OK. By your standard, then, are the legally brain-dead, not just the temporarily flatlined but those who have, at normal body temperature, no electrical activity nor medical expectation of recovering it, actually full humans with full rights? You realize that the transplantation of vital organs is done from such bodies. Is that a human rights violation?

160

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Come now, don’t waffle. The temporary flat-liner has zero brain activity. He hasn’t the capacity to think, to remember–to exercise any mental activity. Because he can’t, you know, having none. This condition seemed to be an important distinction for you with fetuses.

A person temporarily flat-lining has to develop the capability for such functions as well, clearly. It is simply a different development process. But let’s not dwell on that. The important distinction is that he hasn’t any mental activity at the moment. (I may have mentioned this.)
[/quote]
They don’t develop the capability; a previously existing capability is reactivated. It’s not even close to the same thing. A fetus lacks even the capactiy to be a person; the flatlining person does have that capacity, and that’s the difference that matters.

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Nope, you’re wrong. The condition that creates a flat line (don’t call it brain death, if that confuses you) normally results in a condition that irreversible. But not always. Nonetheless–and you can sputter and hem and haw as much as you’d like, and it won’t change this–while the temporary flat-liner is in that condition he is identical to the permanent flat-liner and to early development fetuses in his mental capacity. He has NONE. He can’t think or dream or remember–let’s be frank, he can’t even feel pain in the way a lower animal might. He has NO MENTAL CAPACITY. Sorry, I know this is inconvenient for you.
[/quote]
How is that inconvenient for me ? I never said or implied anything else. His brain still has the data and structure necessary for thought and memory and feelings; in a brain dead person they have been ruined beyond repair, and in a fetus they don’t exist.

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Abstract? You’re really grasping at straws. The human genome is a some ethereal, shapeless construct, one that could result in a puppy as well as a child, eh?
[/quote]
No, it’s encoded data, and it doesn’t represent a human any more than a recipe for chicken soup is chicken soup.

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
When manifested in a fetus, it isn’t anything more than a written description of an unborn child? Sorry, I don’t think so.
[/quote]
And I didn’t say so; once it produces a fetus, the result is human, but still not a person. DNA is not a fetus, and a fetus is not a person.

Look, let me use an analogy. In my view a flatlining person is like a computer that is turned off; a brain dead person is like a computer that’s been smashed to dust, and a fetus is like one that hasn’t even been manufactured yet. I see them as quite seperate catagories, and in only the first case is it actually a computer, instead of debris or raw material.

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
As I mentioned in my last post, don’t use the term “brain death” if it confuses you. It makes no difference to the argument as it relates to that blob of tissue’s current mental capacity.
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t confuse me; it does appear to confuse you, with your constant attempts to pretend that flatlining and brain death are the same.

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
A temporarily flat-lined person is different from a brain-dead person with regard to his current mental capacity, how? Go on, I’ll wait.
[/QUOTE]
In one case the system is shut down, in the other case it’s ruined. That’s the difference. Claiming they are the same is like claiming there’s no difference between turning a machine off and blowing it up.