Strangely convoluted thinking

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by elliotfc

I think it rather obvious that you can trace every human individual's existence to the moment when the egg becomes fertilized, for human development and genetic existence unquestionably begins at that instant.

Of course, at that stage the embryo has nothing even remotely resembling a brain. By this standard, discontinuing life support after the cessation of cortical or brainstem activity would be just as objectionable, since you would consider an individual's existence to continue after brain death.

 

[elliotfc]

Of course, at that stage the embryo has nothing even remotely resembling a brain.

But it can't be doubted that given two things (1) no genetic aberrations or genetic problems that would lead to spontaneous abortion and (2) natural and regular sustenance of the mother that the embryo will have a brain in a matter of months.

It all depends on definition. Apparently you define a human as something having a brain. Does that mean that before we have a brain (or something resembling a brain) we are merely pre-human? You have erected an arbitrary point, as opposed to the obvious point of genetic existence.

By this standard, discontinuing life support after the cessation of cortical or brainstem activity would be just as objectionable, since you would consider an individual's existence to continue after brain death.

No, because life support is technological and artifical means of extending what is developmentally dead. Embryos are moving forward, and the individuals you mention above are at the end of the line.

-Elliot

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by elliotfc

You have erected an arbitrary point, as opposed to the obvious point of genetic existence.

Genetic existence? The toenail clippings under my couch have 'genetic existence'.

...life support is technological and artifical means of extending what is developmentally dead

Suppose artificial means were used to produce a fertilized embryo. Would that be a human?

Does that mean that before we have a brain (or something resembling a brain) we are merely pre-human?

What is it about fertilization that carries such a special distinction? If it is 'potential', then why not extend legal protection to unfertilized eggs, or sperm cells?

 

[elliotfc]

Genetic existence? The toenail clippings under my couch have 'genetic existence'.

So do dead people.

Fertilized eggs (assuming genetic coherency and healthy mother) are developing humans. We were all fertilized eggs.

Suppose artificial means were used to produce a fertilized embryo. Would that be a human?

Yes, why wouldn't it be? The fertilized embryo would not be essentially artificial. Again, you confuse an action with the individual.

What is it about fertilization that carries such a special distinction?

At fertilization the genetic code that is the basis for every human individual comes into existence. It is quite special.

If it is 'potential', then why not extend legal protection to unfertilized eggs, or sperm cells?

But eggs and sperm do have legal protection! Let's say I rob a fertility clinic...

I know what you mean of course. It isn't potential, that's just it. Unfertilized eggs don't develop into people like you and me, nor do sperms. Fertilized eggs develop into people like you and me, because you and I can trace our existence back to fertilized eggs. We can't trace our existence back to unfertilized eggs or sperms because they were two distinct entities in two different places.

-Elliot

 

[toddjh]

If it is 'potential', then why not extend legal protection to unfertilized eggs, or sperm cells?

Or any cell, now that human cloning is on the horizon. I don't buy the "potential human" argument any more than you do. Potential is not the reality. A fertilized egg has no feelings to hurt.

What is it about fertilization that carries such a special distinction?

Just to play devil's advocate, pro-choice people often fall into the same trap, assuming that some magical event takes place at the instant of birth that transforms a fetus with no rights into a human being whom it would be murder to kill. Both sides have their share of irrationality.

Jeremy

 

[elliotfc]

Or any cell, now that human cloning is on the horizon. I don't buy the "potential human" argument any more than you do. Potential is not the reality. A fertilized egg has no feelings to hurt.

I agree, potential merely obscures. The fertilized egg is a developing entity, it does not have the *potential* to be a developing entity. If it ain't human, then enter abitrary delineations. And if you have arbitrary delineations, then what comes before is merely potential. But we agree, potential is not the reality.

As for feelings, what do feelings have to do with this?

-Elliot

 

[pgwenthold]

If destroying a fertilized egg is wrong, then God is the biggest offender there is.

 

[elliotfc]

If destroying a fertilized egg is wrong, then God is the biggest offender there is.

Do you believe in God then? Do you believe that God is directly responsible for the death of all human life?

You've just interjected theology into what was a nice discussion. Thanks a lot!

The fertilized egg, if it possesses severe genetic aberrations, will spontaneously abort. Got it? Are you saying that the fertilized egg is in alright genetic condition, but all of a sudden God puts the whomp down? Spontaneous abortion is not an act of God, it happens for natural reasons.

Could you explain your theolgy better? It seems you are talking absolute nonsense, maybe you mean something different.

-Elliot

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by elliotfc

The fertilized embryo would not be essentially artificial.

Yet, you said:

...life support is technological and artifical means of extending what is developmentally dead

The brain dead patient is not 'essentially artificial' either. If you are saying that his life is essentially artificial due to the artificial means used to prolong it, why does that not apply to the embryo, whose life is artificially created?

We can't trace our existence back to unfertilized eggs or sperms

Sure we can.

because they were two distinct entities in two different places

What the heck difference does that make?

As for feelings, what do feelings have to do with this?

Feelings have everything to do with this.

 

[toddjh]

Fertilized eggs (assuming genetic coherency and healthy mother) are developing humans. We were all fertilized eggs.

We were all part of a supernova once, too. What's the relevance?

Fertilized eggs develop into people like you and me, because you and I can trace our existence back to fertilized eggs. We can't trace our existence back to unfertilized eggs or sperms because they were two distinct entities in two different places.

This is sidestepping the real issue. The real issue is, what is it about human beings that makes killing them wrong, when killing animals (for certain purposes) is okay? If your argument is that we have a "soul" or some other supernatural mumbo-jumbo, then we're going to be talking past each other.

My answer: our brain. Our brains are what separate us from the rest of the animals. We are conscious, sentient, self-aware, whatever you want to call it. We can reason and think rationally. Most importantly, during our lives we accumulate a vast storehouse of information that defines who we are and how we react in different situations. Because we have a large and complex brain.

The next question, of course, is whether a fertilized egg has this quality. In my case, the answer is obviously "no." A fertilized egg has no brain at all. It has no consciousness, and most importantly, no identity. When an ovum is destroyed, there is no harm done to a conscious being, and no accumulated information to be lost.

For an intellectual exercise, ask yourself if you could tell the difference between a fertilized human egg and, say, a fertilized rat egg. I'll wager they look pretty similar under a microscope. Pick an animal with an identical chromosome count, just to makes things tricky. If you can't tell the difference between them, then why should they be treated differently? Because of what they may turn into at some unspecified future date?

Jeremy

 

[toddjh]

I agree, potential merely obscures. The fertilized egg is a developing entity, it does not have the *potential* to be a developing entity.

But being a "developing entity" is not sufficient for legal protection. Cows are "developing entities," and yet we kill them by the millions and don't think twice about it.

What matters is humanity -- in the intellectual sense -- and a fetus is not human, it is merely a potential human.

If it ain't human, then enter abitrary delineations.

Sure. Sorry if that's too many shades of gray for you to be comfortable with, but that's the way most things work: you have to draw the line somewhere, and apply rational reasoning to the best information you have available. Right now, that reasoning indicated that a fetus begins showing distinctly human-like activity at around 20 to 24 weeks.

As for feelings, what do feelings have to do with this?

What's the harm in ending the life of an organism with no feelings? Or do you weep when the corn is harvested, too?

Jeremy

 

[Dymanic]

And I'll add this:

ALL delineations are arbitrary at some degree of resolution.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What's the harm in ending the life of an organism with no feelings? Or do you weep when the corn is harvested, too?

Jeremy

Just hoping I can beat the " But they twitch when you stick needles in them.. " rebuttles...

 

[elliotfc]

The brain dead patient is not 'essentially artificial' either.

Nope, just essentially dead. Game over. Call the funeral home.

If you are saying that his life is essentially artificial due to the artificial means used to prolong it, why does that not apply to the embryo, whose life is artificially created?

The life is not essentially artifical. It is prolonged (I guess) by artifical means, when it could not possibly be prolonged by natural means.

The embryo can come into being naturall or artificially. It's putting a sperm and an egg together. Once that's done, you've got the same thing. Is there an essential difference between artificially manufactured fertilized eggs and naturally fertilized eggs?

As for life support, it is essentially technological intervention when no natural means of prolonging life is possible.

Feelings have everything to do with this.

If we're just trafficing in feelings here, what's to say one feeling is better than another?

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

We were all part of a supernova once, too. What's the relevance?

Really? So you believe that genetic life was present in supernovas? How did that genetic life get there, and how did it survive through the whole supernova process?

This is sidestepping the real issue. The real issue is, what is it about human beings that makes killing them wrong, when killing animals (for certain purposes) is okay?

Accepting the tautlogy that killing human life is wrong, and killing animal life is not a commensurate wrong. If they are commensurate to you, all I can do is feel sorry for you. All humans have to have tautological standards and I'm sorry yours is so low.

If your argument is that we have a "soul" or some other supernatural mumbo-jumbo, then we're going to be talking past each other.

Nope, I'll just stick to the statement that human life is more important than animal life. If that's talking past you, I'm happy to do so. Some people have a hard time grasping important concepts, but I can't let that get me down, I'm content that most people are sensible about this important fact.

My answer: our brain. Our brains are what separate us from the rest of the animals.

And brains are coded by our DNA. Our DNA is different from the rest of animals. If our DNA was the same, there goes your unique brain.

The next question, of course, is whether a fertilized egg has this quality.

Sure, it has the DNA that will code for the brain that will be formed in due and natural course.

So let me get this straight. Before you had a brain, you weren't a human. You were a pre-human. Is that about right?

When an ovum is destroyed, there is no harm done to a conscious being, and no accumulated information to be lost.

Do you mean fertilized ovum?

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Even spontaneous abortions effect the mother (the may be negligable effects, but they do effect the mother). As for accumulated information, whever an entity with unique DNA is destroyed, information is lost.

For an intellectual exercise, ask yourself if you could tell the difference between a fertilized human egg and, say, a fertilized rat egg. I'll wager they look pretty similar under a microscope.

But I haven't been talking about phenotype. My whole position is based on genotype. So if you don't want to talk about genotype, but phenotype instead, we truly are talking past each other.

Pick an animal with an identical chromosome count, just to makes things tricky. If you can't tell the difference between them, then why should they be treated differently?

Look, if you're gonna pull out the microscopes to count chromosomes, why stop there?

They should be treated differently because they are essentially different.

Because of what they may turn into at some unspecified future date?

Nope, because of what they are.

I'd give you this point if women had the potential to give birth to zebras or chipmunks. But you're making this sound like such huge mystical question. What are they going to turn into? What may they turn into? What are you talking about? What data makes you think that they may turn into just about anything?

Fertilized eggs. They spontaneously abort if the DNA is messed up. Or maybe then are aborted by other means. And short of abortion you've got born people. What's so hard about that?

See yall in a week or two.

-Elliot

 

[Jas]

I saw a very patriotic truck today...

It had many bumperstickers including "JESUS IS LORD" (with Lord in much larger 3D letters to accentuate important).

Two Jesus fish, tail to tail.

About 5 "Re-Elect Bush" stickers.

The truck was a rusty Ford.

Wierd...I saw almost the same thing last week...It had Jesus fish, a couple "Shine 88.9 FM, The Best Music this side of Heaven" stickers, a pro-life sticker, and anti-gun control sicker, a 'Defend the West' sticker, and some Stampeders decals. But it was a huge, brand new SUV.

Cars like that have always confused me. They're generally inconsiderate drievrs as well (or do I only notice that because of the stickers?).

 

[toddjh]

Really? So you believe that genetic life was present in supernovas? How did that genetic life get there, and how did it survive through the whole supernova process?

What is "genetic life?" A definition, please.

Accepting the tautlogy that killing human life is wrong, and killing animal life is not a commensurate wrong. If they are commensurate to you, all I can do is feel sorry for you. All humans have to have tautological standards and I'm sorry yours is so low.

Don't get insulting; you're doing fairly well so far. No, of course I don't think animal life is equivalent to human life. I simply see no reason to view a fertilized egg as "human life" -- it lacks the physiological structures that give rise to humanity as I see it.

Call it "sentient life," if you prefer, to avoid semantic arguments about what "human" means.

And brains are coded by our DNA. Our DNA is different from the rest of animals. If our DNA was the same, there goes your unique brain.

The ability of our brains to grow is coded by our DNA. The way our brains will grow is determined as much by our environment as our genetic code. DNA itself does not encode "me" -- my personality and experiences. If I were killed and then cloned, the clone would not be "me," and "I" would still be dead.

So let me get this straight. Before you had a brain, you weren't a human. You were a pre-human. Is that about right?

Yes. Or, to put it in a way that somewhat more accurately represents my position: without a brain, "I" -- the part of my identity and mind that I consider important -- did not exist.

Do you mean fertilized ovum?

I don't see a particularly relevant difference between the two. Sure, one has been fertilized, but big deal. It's still just a single cell; nothing to get worked up about. We lose millions of them every day.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Even spontaneous abortions effect the mother (the may be negligable effects, but they do effect the mother). As for accumulated information, whever an entity with unique DNA is destroyed, information is lost.

Are you trying to be deliberately difficult here? I think it's safe to assume that I'm only concerned with significant effects, not negligible ones. And the information contained in DNA specifies only how an organism should grow. I don't consider that kind of information meaningful. I'm talking about the information of human experience and personality -- much more meaningful and much harder to reproduce.

Suppose the DNA of the fertilized egg were recorded. Would you then consider it okay to destroy the fetus? No information would be lost...

But I haven't been talking about phenotype. My whole position is based on genotype. So if you don't want to talk about genotype, but phenotype instead, we truly are talking past each other.

Ah, then you're arguing that human life is superior to other forms of life because our genetic code is superior -- that the things that make us special aren't a result of our physical form per se, but simply because the information contained in our DNA is somehow "better?" That's a rather bizarre way of looking at it. Can you give me any kind of reason to think this is true? A numeric analysis of our DNA, for instance, that clearly shows it is superior to the genetic code of other species? I don't even know what "superior" would mean in that context, but the claim is yours, not mine.

To put it another way, could you perform a double-blind study of the genetic codes of several species, and tell me which one was "superior" without comparing the phenotypes of those species at all? Please outline your plan for doing so.

Also, if you're discussing only genotype, then explain your distinction between a fertilized egg and any other cell in our body. They contain the same genetic code. Shouldn't one be treated the same as the other, if genetics is the only relevant thing?

Jeremy

 

[neutrino_cannon]

How is it like saying that? For one thing, you can only be aborted (or born) once; after you're born you've already definitively avoided what is arguably the most direct risk posed by abortion - which is not the case with a phenomenon like mugging (which is theoretically capable of repetition in any individual's case). For another thing, the analogy is obviously going to break down if you're likening something positive (being born) to something negative (being mugged).

It's stretch, obviously. I couldn't choose murder as opposed to mugging because a murdered person making suggestions of any kind is absurd.

I took an example of something that happens to you that you may oppose happening to other people for whatever reason, and compared it to another example where something, that may be negative for other people, happens to you and you oppose it.

It's a stretch, but I had fun doing it, and that's what counts.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Strangely convoluted thinking

As for pain and angst, ever see the movies of fetuses reacting to the introduction of the tools of D&C? As for pain, if premies can feel pain, why not fetuses?

From article on "fetal pain":

Much public concern has been raised over the possibility that a fetus can feel pain. Fetuses may appear to respond to stimuli by movement, and this has been interpreted as indicating that they are able to feel pain. This is however likely to be incorrect, as these movements are thought to be reflexes generated by the spinal cord, and not associated with conscious awareness. It would thus be a mistake to see these movements as genuine expressions of pain.

The brain structures and nerve-cell connections that characterize the thinking and feeling parts of the brain are not completed until between the 7th and 8th months of gestation. Only after 30 weeks to the brain waves show patterns of waking consciousness when pain can be perceived. The reflex actions that are present before this stage do not indicate ability to feel pain. Abortions virtually never occur after 24 weeks.

The Supreme Court rules that states may prohibit abortion in the their trimester, unless a woman's life or health is endangered. Only .9% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and none after 24 weeks. After 24 weeks, an emergency condition, e.g. toxemia, of the woman could end in an induced premature birth, with survival of both mother and infant as its goal. 91% of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

 

[UserGoogol]

A better analogy might be if a person who was born as a result of rape was against rape.