Protecting insentient "human life"

@ Wanderhome: I disagree. One has to draw the line somewhere. If a person has lived, then their death is tragic because they were conscious and aware and interacting with others, and all that has been brought to an untimely end. If a person hasn't actually lived yet, then them never coming into being is a non-issue. We don't typically regard it as tragic that many "potential" people were never conceived, after all.

@ Ivy: Ah, yes, I see what you mean.

edited 11th Feb '11 12:29:54 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

No, but saving the "unborn" children helps children about as much as not going to a sperm bank.

No.

Not really, there is plenty of mental function in someone knocked "unconcious" that does not exist in a fetus or embryo.

It depends on what you mean by "alive". They are a lot less alive than your "unconcious" friend, your pet dog, or your relative in a coma.

So you're treating the convenience and comfort of one person as more important than the life of another.

That's an interestingly little meaningless statement! I love how it's so general that it doesn't mean a thing!

Is an embryo a person? Probably not! Let's not ingore these terms are and what they mean ethically and why. What's a human? What's a person?

An animal is a living thing, too. And yet you're calling it nothing more than a resource. Tell me, what does an embryo have that matters more than what a dog has?

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

Well, hang on a second. I think it's a bit strange to dispute that a human embryo is alive and human, although I wouldn't say it was a person or a being.

And once it reaches the foetal stage, I think it's fair to say that it's conscious, though not sapient.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

It's certainly not an independent life.

No, it clearly isn't. But it is alive.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

No Man Is An Island.

hashtagsarestupid

Well it's a good thing I'm NOT.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

OK then.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

"^^ I disagree. One has to draw the line somewhere. If a person has lived, then their death is tragic because they were conscious and aware and interacting with others, and all that has been brought to an untimely end. If a person hasn't actually lived yet, then them never coming into being is a non-issue. We don't typically regard it as tragic that many "potential" people were never conceived, after all."

I think we're starting to go in circles here, but what the hey:

P1: Gametes, containing either part or all of the genetic code of an adult human, are parts of that adult human. As such, the adult human can do whatever they want with them.

P2: When two gametes fuse to form a zygote, their genetic material is combined to form that of a new individual.

C1: Therefore, the life of an individual human starts at conception.

---

P1: In addition to the occurance of simple metabolic processes, human life is distinguished from death by human experience (i.e., self-awareness, conscious thought, experience, et cetera).

P2: It is wrong to deprive a human being of human experience.

C2: Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human being.

---

P1: A fetus does not possess human experience.

P2: A fetus, unless killed, will possess human experience in the future.

P3: Our actions, undertaken in the present, only affect the future, not the past.

P4: A fetus, since their life has already begun at conception, has the rights of any other human individual.

P5: Therefore, killing a fetus means depriving it of human experience, which is the same as killing any other human.

C3: Therefore, it is wrong to kill a fetus.

Basically, if it hasn't been seen already. The whole point of my argument is "what does a fetus have that is ethnically more valuable than, say, a pet dog?".

And "how is an embryo even equal to that in terms of human-ness as a human in a coma?". I don't think that a human who is asleep or in coma or "knocked out" in a boxing ring, is particularly similar in state to that of an embryo or fetus.

Clearly, animals aren't just seen as just a resource, and human materials forming into a human more valuable than them, by at least the mores of our current society law. Or bestiality wouldn't be illegal due to the inability of animals to consent. Or things which inflict pain on animals in general. Such as dogfighting.

An egg, in the middle of coitus, unless interrupted, will possess human experience in the future.

Perhaps coitus interruptus is immoral. A man will have to think about that next time a woman says "no" in the middle of sex. Live isn't fair, after all! Especially for women! I mean, it doesn't matter what's unfair, life is supposed to be unfair for them.

edited 11th Feb '11 12:54:09 PM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

"That's an interestingly little meaningless statement! I love how it's so general that it doesn't mean a thing!"

It's actually quite specific. The rights of people matter. Only humans are people. Therefore, only the rights of humans matters.

"Is an embryo a person? Probably not! Let's not ingore these terms are and what they mean ethically and why. What's a human? What's a person?"

Yes, an embryo is a person. See my last post.

A human being is a member of the species Homo Sapiens. A person is a human being.

"An animal is a living thing, too. And yet you're calling it nothing more than a resource. Tell me, what does an embryo have that matters more than what a dog has?"

An animal is alive, but it is not a human being, and therefore not a person. Only people have rights, so animals do not have rights.

An embryo has human life, which matters more than animal life, because human life makes it a person, which confers individual rights.

Genetic code doesn't make one a person. Egg and sperm have genetic code.

The possibility of becoming an infant baby does not make something a "person" in the human moral sense.

edited 11th Feb '11 12:56:02 PM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

"An egg, in the middle of coitus, unless interrupted, will possess human experience in the future."

Not true. An egg, in the middle of coitus, might be reached by sperm in time to be fertilized and form a new, individual, human being.

Until that time, it is only part of the body of a woman, to be done with as she wishes. If that means preventing sperm from reaching it, whether through contraception or abstinence, that is her choice.

No matter what, however, an egg is not a human being. It may become part of the first cell of a human being.

EDIT:

"Genetic code doesn't make one a person. Egg and sperm have genetic code."

As I wrote in all of my previous statements involving the relevance of genetic code to the formation of an individual, gametes have the genetic code, whole or in part of either a man or a woman, and are therefore parts of that individual.

EDIT 2:

"The possibility of becoming an infant baby does not make something a "person" in the human moral sense."

The fetus is already a human being, regardless of whether it ultimately matures or not. Because it is already a human, it has the rights of a human being.

Everyone dies sooner or later. Killing a human being does not take away anything they already have experienced, only what they will experience. It is no more a defense for killing a fetus that they might die before gaining consciousness than it is a defense for killing a man that he might have died anyway.

edited 11th Feb '11 1:05:33 PM by Wanderhome

So the huge moral difference is one insignificant step? That's ridiculous.

The fetus might become a person, and it might not. And a sperm might reach an egg, and it might not.

And neither is a fertilized egg.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

"So the huge moral difference is one insignificant step? That's ridiculous."

The formation of a zygote is not an "insignificant step." It's certainly far more significant than whether the individual happens to be inside a womb or has been pushed out yet.

"The fetus might become a person, and it might not. And a sperm might reach an egg, and it might not. "

The fetus already is a person. A sperm or an egg is not.

"And neither is a fertilized egg."

Well, since it is no longer an egg, but a zygote and therefore a separate individual once fertilization is complete, you're right.

^^ Insignificant? It's the step that starts the entire thing. It's the single most crucial part of the process short of simply having all the parts there to begin with.

This kind of feels like Sunk Cost Fallacy. Like Wander said, the whole point is to optimize the future.

Nor are human children for quite a long time. Humans have especially helpless offspring as far as mammals go.

Regarding convenience and comfort, yes, that's exactly what it is. It's quite a nontrivial amount of convenience and comfort and we ought to provide a good deal more support to minimize that which is lost, but ultimately I cannot reconcile that being less important than life.

edited 11th Feb '11 1:15:17 PM by Pykrete

Sex starts the entire thing. Being fertile starts the entire thing. It's not so significant in so far that it's any more significant than having the sperm and egg to begin with. What convenient nit-picking. Words can always say what you want them to if you purposely ignore the context.

Only in-so far as that it has all of the genetic information, and not part of it.

I don't think that's enough to consider it a person, though.

edited 11th Feb '11 1:26:53 PM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

"I don't think that's enough to consider it a person, though."

Then where, exactly, do you draw the line between "potential person" and "person"?

EDIT:

"Sex starts the entire thing. Being fertile starts the entire thing. It's not so significant in so far that it's any more significant than having the sperm and egg to begin with. What convenient nit-picking. Words can always say what you want them to if you purposely ignore the context. "

I'm pretty sure that by "the entire thing", Pykrete meant pre-natal development (possibly the life of the individual as a whole). In either of those contexts, it is the formation of the zygote that starts it, while fertility and sex are conditions that are required before "it" starts.

edited 11th Feb '11 1:29:37 PM by Wanderhome

When a person has thoughts and emotions, at least reasonable remote fraction of, what an infant would have.

A person in a Coma has that. A fetus does not.

I also don't think that fertilization is particularly important. Because while the fertilized egg may become this emotional feeling, thinking human I speak of, it is only a step or so close to it than the act of sex itself. "Unconscious" is kind of an odd term, because "unconscious" children have a much more unconscious mind than a fetus. I think that the "Unconscious" mind of a newborn infant is radically different from the head formations of a fetus.

A newborn has a fully developed brain, a fetus does not. That is the difference I am making between a child, and an embryo or fetus.

edited 11th Feb '11 1:35:46 PM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

At about two years of age.

Seriously though, they're potentially people before they're born and people after. While in utero it's incredibly easy to miscarry. Somewhere between 20-30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, and since we're not treating those as involuntary manslaughter cases...

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

"When a person has thoughts and emotions, at least reasonable remote fraction of, what an infant would have.

A person in a Coma has that. A fetus does not."

At what point, then, does one have a "reasonable" fraction of the mental capacity of an infant?

And, no, a person in a coma does not necessarily experience thoughts or emotions.

"Seriously though, they're potentially people before they're born and people after. While in utero it's incredibly easy to miscarry. Somewhere between 20-30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, and since we're not treating those as involuntary manslaughter cases..."

I do not see how having a high rate of mortality equals not being a person.

edited 11th Feb '11 1:38:59 PM by Wanderhome

That is exactly a point I was trying to make.

When I compared abortion to coitus interruptus, you said that sex may make a child, but an embryo is certainly on the way to becoming a child. However, that's simply not a difference. Neither guarantee a child. Both are things that can lead to a child. But I don't think once and egg and sperm mix, they are at a magical point of being radically ethically different from all other things that lead to a child.

When they have the ability to feel pain, pleasure, and other emotions.

edited 11th Feb '11 1:40:39 PM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

Sigh. Thread moves too fast.

While I can certainly empathize with the view that it is the future that we are protecting by not killing the sleeping people, because decisions are based on a costs benefits analysis as it pertains to affecting change in the surrounding universe, the notion of Rights functions separately-saying that regardless of the Utilitarian outcomes, certain things are prohibited from happening.

That probably comes off as a total Chewbacca Defense though, since it's so out of left field from like, thirty posts ago or something.

"When I compared abortion to coitus interruptus, you said that sex may make a child, but an embryo is certainly on the way to becoming a child. However, that's simply not a difference. Neither guarantee a child. Both are things that can lead to a child. But I don't think once and egg and sperm mix, they are at a magical point of being radically ethically different from all other things that lead to a child."

The problem is, the fetus is already a person, the argument for which I have detailed previously.

"Magic" has nothing to do with it. If you hold that is wrong to kill a living human being, which I assume you do, then there must be a concrete, objectively definable point at which life begins.

Birth (as in the point of leaving the womb) is just a matter of location, and is not reliant on the level of development of the individual whose life is being considered.

"A reasonable fraction" of an infant's mental capacity is a vague definition that you have not clarified.

The point of conception, unlike either of those, is a point at which one can objectively define the shift from the reproductive cells of two adult individuals to the formation of the first cell in the body of a third, new individual.

I'm sorry, where'd you get the idea that a fetus is a person? Can you link to that at least? I missed it.

Seem to me any pro-choice advocate who's willing to accept the premise "The fetus is a person" probably shouldn't be pro-choice.

edited 11th Feb '11 1:47:14 PM by TheyCallMeTomu