“Our views” are you speaking for all pro choice folks? :dubious:
FWIW…there is a pretty fair divergence of opinions from pro choice folks out there concerning the biological status of the z/e/f …there are plenty of folks who claim that a zygote/embryo/fetus is NOT a life, is NOT a human organism (I’m not talking about the philosophical concept of “personhood” or “rights”…just the embryology).
**
I believe that my earlier post (and especially the linked piece I included) did address just that. “Personhood” is a philosophical concept…not a medical one. It can be granted, for example, only to white folks…or only after “sentience” or “viability” or “exit through birth canal”". It’s an entirely arbitrary notion based on cultural beliefs. If you’re a black dude in the 1700s’…too bad for you.
Defining a concept as ‘philosophical’ doesn’t entitle you to render it irrelevant to the discussion
Here’s some simple analysis.
Is a conceptus human? Evidently yes. You only need to look at the DNA to see that.
Is a conceptus alive? Evidently yes, at least in the same sense that trees, flowers, and a donated kidney are all ‘alive’.
Should we treat a conceptus with exactly the same degree of respect which we accord to a living human? If so - why? If not - why not?
The last question is the one that counts and if it has a philosophical bent - so be it. It’s possible that this question can’t be addressed by examining the biological facts alone.
I am interested in your responses, beagledave and hauss.
Need some more straw? I never claimed that philosophcal concepts were “irrelevant”, I was (much like the article I linked to) attempting to differentiate between concepts that are essentially embryological and concepts that are essentially philosophical. I was doing so in response to earlier posts in this thread (and countless other threads) where folks have been claiming that
The z/e/f is not “alive” until some time after conception
The z/e/f is not “a life” until some time after conception
The z/e/f is not “human” until some time after conception.
The z/e/f is indistinguishable from kidney cells or tumor cells.
**
There are plenty of pro choice folks who have disagreed with that statement
**
ditto above.
I’ve had several posters tell me that since cessation of brain function is often used as a definition of “death”, that therefore the definition of “life” must be the start of brain function (as if there is some magic “start”…but thats a nother argument) I’ve senn posters claim that the z/e/f is not “alive” until it is birthed. Really. The embryological facts that you seem to claim as “givens”…are certainly not universal truths among pro choice folks by any stretch of the imagination.
**
This may sound weasly, but I, Bob Cos, JThunder and others have spent plenty of posts outlining our answers to that exact question in previous threads. IMHO, Bob has done a much better job in articulating an answer than I have…so if I could humbly suggest a search or two
FWIW, I’m not interested in supporting hauss’s line off thinking that he/she has articulated here, not exactly strong points made IMHO.
I do understand that you are making a distinction betweens matters biological and matters philosophical.
You have not, however addressed my point that the biological facts alone may be insufficient to make the ethical decision about whether or not to permit abortions.
Most of the rest of your post seemed like smoke and mirrors to me, and ignored the clear distinction between “life” and “valuable human life” which I have been trying to maintain.
Your assertion that brain function might be a necessary condition for being alive “in the same sense that trees, flowers, and a donated kidney are all ‘alive’” made me smile.
And yes, your evasion of my key point does indeed sound weasily. If you have simple yes or no answer, and some kind of justification, then please provide it. There’s far too much fog and hand-waving to try and hunt for answers earlier in the thread.
Here’s the question again for ease of reference:
Should we treat a conceptus with exactly the same degree of respect which we accord to a living human? If so - why? If not - why not?
Well your first post in this thread went to great lengths to distinguish between the terms “alive” and “a life” suggesting (by my reading) that there is no clear definition of when human life begins. (You went on to create hypothetical examples involving cloning and other manipulations to challenge the embryological assertion that human life begins at conception). Now you’re apparently saying that “when human life begins” is not the issue, but only when it becomes “valuable human life”.
Right…
**
Uh hello? That was not my assertion, but the assertion of some other pro choice folks…but thanks for paying attention :rolleyes:
**
Your initial post (and subsequent) posts seem quite different from your stated “key point” now focusing on “valuable human life” I don’t think i avoided your initial post at all.
**
I’ve already said that I (and other posters who did a much better job than me) have answered this post in previous threads (not this thread). It’s not a one sentence answer. it’s a topic that has a lot of give and take involving a whole host of related ideas…like “is there really such a thing as a “right to life” at any point in development…before or after birth” etc… I’m not especially interested in doing that in this thread now when I (and others, pro life and pro choice) have done it in other threads. Think I’m weasling?..sowwy.
Okay, when you want to answer the question, let me know. I’ve done some searching, but I haven’t been able to find that exact question, and therefore unsuprisingly I haven’t found an answer. If there’s a particularly useful thread, then as a new doper, I’d welcome a point in the right direction.
A lot of the rest of your post just looked like deliberate misunderstanding to me but if other dopers have had equal trouble following my argument, I’ll try and put it in simple terms.
Jeez. All that typing and quoting and you won’t even give me a yes or no. Here’s the question one more time.
**Should we treat a conceptus with exactly the same degree of respect which we accord to a living human? **
We can leave the whys till another day if you want.
Huh. Well I explained why I answered the way I did. I explained why your initial post seemed to be about the differnce between “being alive” and “a life” (Hell have you gone back and READ your damn post? Are you really trying to tell me that the whole long list of things like venus fly trap and chicken was REALLY asking about valuable human life?
:dubious:
One wonders who is being obtuse here…
**
A zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, teenager and a Bear’s fan are all “living humans”. So the question, as framed, doesn’t seem to work. And the phrase “same degree of respect” is kind of vague.
However…If your question is : Does a human z/e/f, newborn, teenager, adult have a general “right to life”, than my answer is yes.
If your question is : Do a human z/e/f. newborn, teenager, adult all have “the same rights”. Then my answer is no. Newborns can’t vote, drink, drive cars etc…
I would like to test this position, if you don’t mind, and see if it can be supported logically. This will involved some “thought-experiments” which you are of course free to dismiss as “merely hypothetical”. But I am interested to see whether this position is logically coherent. If it is, it will stand up to a couple of thought experiments (and remember only six years ago, cloning was only a thought experiment).
As you may have guessed, I believe that this position is not coherent, and I will explain how and why I believe that and also how and why I believe this position arises as we go.
Ready?
Can we establish a couple of “axioms”. I’m only interested in whether we both share these beliefs, I don’t want separate debates on each one (you can start new threads if you want).
Murder of another human is morally wrong
If a conceptus has the same “right to life” as a newborn / teenager / adult, then abortion is murder.
By the way. I note that I had to post my previous question three times before I had an answer. Will it be the same this time round? Shall I post it three times in a row to save time?
When I pour disinfectant on a surface thought to be harboring coliform bacteria, I’m not only interrupting life-producing processes but killing life itself. I bet that’s not what you mean. You mean human life, yes?
Seems like a silly way of looking at it. Lots of things would have happened but didn’t as a consequence of things I do or don’t do, but that doesn’t mean that there’s some kind of “ghost world” of unrealized possibilities looking sadly out of their limbo prison at the world in which they would have been made real if things had gone differently. Anyway, I’m not squeamish. We can call the embryo a “life”, we can even call it a “human life”, and we can stipulate that what we’re doing is killing that human life. It is not, however, a conscious and cognizant human life with history as well as potential. It exists at a point on the continuum between spermatozoa and ova, which are alive and human, and fully conscious individual with intentions and memories and beliefs and passions, which are persons as well. Quite aside from even that, we do kill actual adults who are persons and citizens and as human as you can get, for a handful of reasons we deem legitimate. Mostly I think that, in comparison, “because it’s growing inside of me and parasiting off my body and I don’t want it there” is an equally legitimate reason, and the only reason a pregnant person should need in order to obtain an abortion. Your task is not to convince folks like me that an embryo or fetus could be or already is alive, but rather to explain why the above-listed reason is not sufficient, or why someone other than the pregnant person should make that assessment.
That would be one incredibly precocious fetus, even if it were definitely male.
No, it isn’t someone’s dad, nor is it the 58th President or the discoverer of the cure for cancer or the second coming of Jesus Christ. It isn’t predestined to do a damn thing. It, and all others of its ilk, have potential and possibilities. That’s all. Mother Nature erupts with an excessive cornucopia of potential and possibility and it would not be a tolerable world for any living thing if every possibility were realized.
Well, no. I’m depriving a chance to be a person from being a realized chance. There’s no person yet.
Good reason, ain’t it? Each specific case should be decided on its own merits by the appropriate person, that person being the person in whose body the embryo is growing.
See above. The pregnant person is in the position to rule on this.
To the last question: I think that we should treat it equally because it is “essentially” a human. For all intensive purposes, IMHO, it might as well be considered “personhood”, “unique life”, ect. because if all goes as planned, it will probably be one soon. (probably meaning “very good chance” and also “a chance which cannot be predicted” and thus defaulting to the safe, reasonable precaution of non-abortion.)
That’s why there is no correct answer, because there can only be opinions here. At least that’s what I have been trying to establish in my last couple posts. Do you all at least agree with this?
I think this is the truth. Even in beagledave’s link regarding when life begins, the author states “The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question.” One should have a decent knowledge of the biology first, then apply your own morals to that knowledge to decide where you stand.
Given time, I could probably imagine a long list of possible reasons why you might say this, that or the other, but it would be better to know for sure.
You think you’re being picked on because you are relatively new here and/or because you hold a minority view? Not by me, I promise; if I’m picking on you at all (and I really wouldn’t like to hear it called that), it would be because, as I already said, your use of emotional language and phrase obscures the facts and pushes the wrong buttons in your opponents’ hearts and minds.
Uh, margin, your post was still a bullshit straw man. Restating the exact same position here (“Hey, really, you never mentioned the mother!”) is not a counter, it’s an affirmation of what I pointed out. If you state yet again that I did not mention the mother in the post in question, I’ll assume it is beyond your ability to understand a simple point of debate.
I’m wondering: What is it that everyone has against the taking of life? I should say with total clarity here that I’m not saying that taking away life is always acceptable behaviour. I just think that clarifying this point for people might make it easier to understand why people hold their opinions on this matter.
Personally, I don’t believe in an afterlife of any particular type, so I figure that if someone wants to sneak up behind me as I type this post and plant a tomahawk in my brain, I’m pretty much okay with that. I mean, I’d like to think that a lot of people wouldn’t be (family, friends, etc), thus causing suffering and making it a fairly unacceptable act, but for me, it wouldn’t make much difference. I wouldn’t even know*. This idea has a couple of consequences that people tend to find unpleasant, but that’s not really what we’re talking about anyway. I’m just saying that it’s kind of difficult to talk about what is right and wrong when we are dealing with things like abortion, and we don’t even know why people are against the taking of life under various circumstances.
~ Isaac
This is actually kind of a cool problem, last I heard known as ‘semi-decidable’. Like the computer halting problem. Obviously, as I finish this post, I know that I didn’t get my brain cut in half. But if I had, I wouldn’t know it. So in other words, I only know the answer to the question if it’s positive - otherwise, I have no idea. Kind of weird, but there you go.
That isn’t an answer, it’s a bold, unexplained assertion. You need to explain why it’s relevant. Why is killing a zygote any worse than simply not concieving a zygote, if we can agree that zygotes are not actually the things with interests, just one sufficient element on the PATH to such a being? In either case, you are preventing the being from coming into being, but in neither case are you actually doing anything TO an existing being.
I don’t understand your computer chip/brain thing, unless it’s just some sort offhand, pointless insult.
Answer to how killing a zypote is different than not conceiving:
Action vs. non-action
Now, you decide whether the difference is better or worse.
Boy, that computer chip comment really stumped some people… I feel special! (I don’t spoon feed… it keeps the posts to a manageable length and keeps the people who can’t understand concepts out of the conversation loop = a good thing.)
Just reflecting to myself: Man, I just don’t understand. Conception is everything that the concept of life entails. It’s life. Maybe a fetus not “living”, but it’s “life” in it’s purest form. It’s how every human begins it’s life, by being conceived. This is not an erroneous way to think about it.
Who cares if it’s living or not. It’s life, it’s special, leave it alone (IMO of course).
