I thought up a brilliant argument in an old abortion thread, and would like the SDMB’s commentary on it. The argument goes like this:
Take standard statements about zygotes et al* being alive, human, etc, and replace with cancer. Cancer is certainly alive, and self-replicating, with DNA distinct from its host. If the new argument “proves” that cancers are people, too!, then the argument is flawed, because it can be used to support nonsense.
Or is it nonsense?
It is nonsense, but I like the way you think!
You can’t put diapers on a tumor…
Well, the tumor lacks one quality the fetus possesses. The fetus is in the process of developing into a separate, independent life form. The tumor is not. This is a pretty significant difference. Also, the fetus is less likely to kill you.
Nonny “would definitely choose an advanced state of pregnancy over an advanced case of cancer” Mouse
Nonsense, IMHO. Although I believe that attainment of human personhood and full human rights isn’t an instantaneous process—it doesn’t happen all at once at the moment of conception, it doesn’t happen all at once at the moment of birth, it’s a gradual development during the whole time in between—I think that the fact that the fetus has the potential to become a full human being makes it fundamentally different from a tumor.
A fetus’s rights as an individual change and increase during the gestation process, according to this view. That’s why a fetus’s “personhood” and individual rights don’t override a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy at will in the early stages, but they do override it in the later stages, especially after viability. But at whatever stage, a human embryo or fetus has a potential for full human rights that a tumor can never have, so it will never make sense to argue that “cancers are people too”.
I like the notion that a fetus is a parasite.
I’m frightened by the idea of a tumor suddenly coming to life as a separate entity from its host.
Yup. Serious horror movie potential there.
Nonny
You evidently haven’t met MY kids have you Nonny? 
Even though I am pro choice, I am quite bothered by people calling a fetus a parasite. No matter what side of the fence you are on, you have to acknowledge two things:
(1) A fetus is a living entity.
(2) This living entity is a homo sapien.
Comparing this living entity that could potentially grow up to be president someday to a tapeworm is downright disrespectfull.
LOL, that thread title really sounds bad. I mean, I’m realize what the OP is saying, but the thread title just sounds purely awful. That said, I’m glad people are having some fun with this, and isolating the issue, because the last thing we either want or need is a full blown abortion debate.
Since the OP brought up a past thread about the general abortion issue, perhaps somebody knows what’s considered the “classic” SDMB abortion thread, so I could link to it whenever it looks like a new debate is about to start up?
I dunno Blalron, comparing the President to a tapeworm sounds like a pretty fair evaluation to me…
Sorry, the “potential person” argument fails to contain a sufficent aqueous solution of hydrogen hydroxide. Strip the DNA from a cell, inject it into an egg whose nucleus has been removed, and provide a womb, etc, and you can get a person. In theory, that is. So far, sheep are all we’ve gotten. But naked DNA is not a person, by any strech of the imagination.
And yes, fetuses are parasites. I’d quote you the textbook definition, but my HTML-fu is weak, and I’m tired.
Alright, Blahron, a fetus is composed of human tissue. So is a tumor. Please differentiate between the two. Bwahahahahah.
Please do quote the definition… unless, of course, you are willing to merely assert this claim without proof or substantiation.
If you need a definition of parasite, look in the friggin’ dictionary. It’ll go a little something like this: A parasite is a lifeform that does not acquire nutrients on its own, but instead drains them from another lifeform. By that biological definition, yeah, a fetus is a parasite. It’s incapable of obtaining its own food, oxygen, etc., so it drains them from a woman’s body, the exact same way a tapeworm or a tick does. Is a fetus morally the same as a tick or tapeworm? Well, that’s a whole other argument, isn’t it?
Nowhere near as disrespectful (one l) as telling people what they “have to” acknowledge.
pldennison:
And of course the most famous example:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0078748
robertliguori
Based on the dictionary.com definition, that’s debatable:
Is the woman a “different organism”? Doesn’t the fetus contribute to the survival of the woman, in the Darwinian sense of the word “survival”?
“It’s go a little something like this”? Sounds to me like you haven’t actually looked in the friggin’ dictionary for your definition.
Sounds to me like a newborn baby would be considered a parasite then. That is, if your alleged definition is accurate.
A tumor doesn’t undergo REM sleep, which a fetus does at a certain point in it’s development (about 6 months, IIRC). It doesn’t suck it’s thumb, or respond to it’s mother’s voice, or kick. See a difference? No? I’m not arguing with you any further.
If you wan tto be intellectually honest, then yeah it’s something you have to acknowledge. From a purely biological perspective, the fetus is a living creature. Whether this creature is a “person” is an entirely different issue.
Kimstu says, *I think that the fact that the fetus has the potential to become a full human being makes it fundamentally different from a tumor. *
I have never found the “potential” argument particularly persuasive in the abortion context.
liguori points out that, with sufficient technology, every cell of ours that contains dna contains the potential to grow into independent personhood.
Furthermore, potential personhood is opted out of every time one spouse or another goes on a business trip, or even a trip to the deli should it occur at certain times.
Conclusion: the “potential” argument is a dead end.
first- robertliguori, i believe your argument is better served by asking about ‘embryos’ instead of ‘fetuses’. the former is a mass of cells (most of the time) and the latter is an organism with tissues, organs, and systems.
second- potential argument- not a dead end, really. if a fetus (or embryo (intrawombally) is left alone and in place, it will in some likelyhood become an extra-uterine life form. not so about any other cell or group of cells in the body.
third- is there a difference?
jb