| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/26/2012 08:49:52 PM · #426 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The application is easy. If subject A is both human and has the full potential to become fully grown it is a human being and thus is a person. |
Therefore a fertilized egg after a few divisions = 16 human beings. Yep, easy application. |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 09:20:27 PM · #427 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The application is easy. If subject A is both human and has the full potential to become fully grown it is a human being and thus is a person. |
Therefore a fertilized egg after a few divisions = 16 human beings. Yep, easy application. |
I'd answer it like this. If the cell is removed from the rest of the embryo and can grow into a whole human, then yes it is a person (eg. Twins or a clone). If it remains part of the embryo it is part of a person. It is an interesting quirk, but one that is easily explained. |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 09:29:26 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the cell is removed from the rest of the embryo and can grow into a whole human, then yes it is a person (eg. Twins or a clone). If it remains part of the embryo it is part of a person. It is an interesting quirk, but one that is easily explained. |
By the same logic, if a fertilized egg or embryo isn't removed from the mother it remains part of her person. |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 09:51:30 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the cell is removed from the rest of the embryo and can grow into a whole human, then yes it is a person (eg. Twins or a clone). If it remains part of the embryo it is part of a person. It is an interesting quirk, but one that is easily explained. |
By the same logic, if a fertilized egg or embryo isn't removed from the mother it remains part of her person. |
Cancer cells are genetically different from the host but contain human DNA -- do they have rights? |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 09:53:45 PM · #430 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Cancer cells are genetically different from the host but contain human DNA -- do they have rights? |
Cancer cells lack the potential to develop into a complete human being. |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 10:03:19 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the cell is removed from the rest of the embryo and can grow into a whole human, then yes it is a person (eg. Twins or a clone). If it remains part of the embryo it is part of a person. It is an interesting quirk, but one that is easily explained. |
By the same logic, if a fertilized egg or embryo isn't removed from the mother it remains part of her person. |
Hmm. Here's what I'd say. The totipotent cell only has potential to form a complete being if it is removed from the embryo. Not removed? No potential. The embryo will by default develop into a full adult in due time and really you can't "not" remove it because it will remove itself naturally. A possible corollary would be conjoined twins. Neither is fully removed from the other but we would naturally consider them two being. |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 10:29:48 PM · #432 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The totipotent cell only has potential to form a complete being if it is removed from the embryo. Not removed? No potential. |
So natural twins don't exist? Your "easy" definition is problematic. |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 10:31:37 PM · #433 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The totipotent cell only has potential to form a complete being if it is removed from the embryo. Not removed? No potential. |
So natural twins don't exist? Your "easy" definition is problematic. |
I'm not quite following you. Of course they do. When the fertilized egg splits into two you have two people (identical twins). Before they split, one person. |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 10:38:33 PM · #434 |
| You just said the 2-16 totipotent cells of an early embryo have no natural potential to form a complete human being. If so, then twins and quadruplets cannot exist naturally. The fact that they do means that embryonic cells MUST have such potential. |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 10:47:11 PM · #435 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You just said the 2-16 totipotent cells of an early embryo have no natural potential to form a complete human being. If so, then twins and quadruplets cannot exist naturally. The fact that they do means that embryonic cells MUST have such potential. |
Maybe we have a different concept of "potential". Theoretical or realized. A totipotent cell has a theoretical potential to develop, but it is only realized when it is removed from the embryo (the other cells of the embryo keep it from happening). A "realized" potential would be one which would, by default, produce a complete human being. The process is occurring. In the same manner a sperm has a theoretical potential to develop into a complete being, but not a realized one until it becomes part of an embryo. Therefore a sperm is not a person (thank goodness), but a zygote is.
It still seems to hold together. Let's compare it to Judith's suggestion or you are welcome to provide input. What rules would you suggest be used to determine personhood? |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 10:50:34 PM · #436 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A totipotent cell has a theoretical potential to develop, but it is only realized when it is removed from the embryo (the other cells of the embryo keep it from happening). |
Again this precludes natural twins. |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 10:57:43 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A totipotent cell has a theoretical potential to develop, but it is only realized when it is removed from the embryo (the other cells of the embryo keep it from happening). |
Again this precludes natural twins. |
Are you sure? How do you envision it happens? Walk me through and I'll apply my thinking.
Message edited by author 2012-02-26 22:59:37. |
|
|
|
02/27/2012 09:11:03 AM · #438 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And I have been waiting for you to articulate your position. You ask me a question -- what specific criteria are required to become a person? -- that you have yet to answer. So far your argument is: a fertilized egg is a human being because it is a person; or, (and it doesn't matter in which order, I think), a fertilized egg is a person because it's a human being. This does not make sense, and you haven't answered your own question.
My answer is that in order to be considered a human being/person, one must have at the very least a BODY! If a fertilized egg is a person, then it is a most peculiar person, one with no body, no brain, no heart, no lungs, no blood, no vital organs, not to mention the higher-order functions such as thought, emotion, sensation, desire, self-awareness (or awareness of any kind for that matter). If I put a fertilized egg in a line-up with actual human persons (like you and me), I think any 2-year-old would be able to pick out the one that didn't fit with the others.
Now, please tell me why I'm wrong or why you disagree. And please, no more shuckin' and jivin'. |
Read, girl, READ! I have laid out my position at least twice now. What specific criteria are required to become a person? Being a human being. Full stop. "Human" is a scientific term and can be determined quite easily. "Being" denotes the difference between an embryo (or a grown person) and a skin cell. One has all the needed potential to become or be fully grown, the other does not. Don't bother quibbling about the exact details here because the intent is obvious. A wart is not a being. A baby is. An embryo shares a special quality with the baby which makes it distinct from the wart. On the other hand a dog is a being, but isn't human.
The application is easy. If subject A is both human and has the full potential to become fully grown it is a human being and thus is a person.
Now what's your position? (and whatever it is I'll just assume Jeb +1's it...)
We can use test cases and you can explain why some are persons and others are not. I'll do it for my position:
A fertilized egg, a fetus with brain activity, a fetus with a heart beat, a viable fetus, an unborn term baby, an infant, an invalid, a person in a coma, a person with severe mental retardation (we can use the term "vegetable" though I don't mean that in any derogatory way), a monkey, a dolphin, a dog.
My position is easily applied. All are persons except the monkey, dolphin and dog on account of them not being human. |
All you've done is included in your definition that which has the potential to become. It seems to me those very words, "potential to become," denotes that it is not now (present tense for the fertilized egg) -- and I would add has never been. You haven't convinced me that this category of entity should be included in the definition of "person." Couldn't sperm and unfertilized egg also be included, then, since they too have the "potential to become" after they are joined together?
Message edited by author 2012-02-27 09:23:14. |
|
|
|
02/27/2012 11:11:37 AM · #439 |
No. You are confusing ideas of "potential". A sperm would have theoretical potential. A fertilized egg has realized potential. In other words, if things progress naturally it will produce a grown human. I would also point out the potential is not a potential to be a being or a person but merely a fully formed individual. It already is a being and I assert it is already a person.
Compare and contrast this with your position. Can you elucidate it for us? |
|
|
|
02/27/2012 02:17:50 PM · #440 |
| Can I claim my fertilized egg as a tax deduction? :-) |
|
|
|
02/27/2012 02:55:16 PM · #441 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
All you've done is included in your definition that which has the potential to become. It seems to me those very words, "potential to become," denotes that it is not now (present tense for the fertilized egg) -- and I would add has never been. You haven't convinced me that this category of entity should be included in the definition of "person." |
What would you need to be convinced? A legal precedent? I'm no lawyer but it seems like it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to include "potential" in such a definition. If we can do that with tort law, (ex. future/potential earnings is often included as part of the award in wrongful death cases) then surely we can apply this same concept to more valuable things like life itself and not just money, no?
Message edited by author 2012-02-27 14:56:02. |
|
|
|
02/27/2012 06:22:35 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No. You are confusing ideas of "potential". A sperm would have theoretical potential. A fertilized egg has realized potential. In other words, if things progress naturally it will produce a grown human. I would also point out the potential is not a potential to be a being or a person but merely a fully formed individual. It already is a being and I assert it is already a person. |
...Actually Doc, if things progress naturally, the fertilized egg has a probabilityof becoming a human being. It could also, partially develop in the fallopian tubes, self abort or discharge due to a variety of factors.
My spouse went through the in-vitro process and four fertilized eggs were implanted. Two were lost naturally, two premature children were born of which one died.
In this scenario, your argument is somewhat flawed.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/27/2012 06:31:46 PM · #443 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No. You are confusing ideas of "potential". A sperm would have theoretical potential. A fertilized egg has realized potential. In other words, if things progress naturally it will produce a grown human. I would also point out the potential is not a potential to be a being or a person but merely a fully formed individual. It already is a being and I assert it is already a person. |
...Actually Doc, if things progress naturally, the fertilized egg has a probabilityof becoming a human being. It could also, partially develop in the fallopian tubes, self abort or discharge due to a variety of factors.
My spouse went through the in-vitro process and four fertilized eggs were implanted. Two were lost naturally, two premature children were born of which one died.
In this scenario, your argument is somewhat flawed.
Ray |
Not really, Ray; it makes as much sense to argue against the premise based on the possibility that a newborn babe might suffer SIDS. The point here is that neither a sperm nor an egg has "realized potential", but once they come together a new entity has come into being that, barring untoward circumstances (such as an topical pregnancy, say, or an abortion) will come to term and enter the world as a human being. IF we are going to argue about exactly when "personhood" appears, when this clump of cells attains its new status, then clearly that status isn't invested in either the egg OR the sperm, pre-conception, but clearly that potential exists in the embryo.
Again, let me reiterate; I'm a pro-choice guy, I am not arguing that "abortion is murder", but at the same time I get impatient with people who act if there's something insane or irrational about folks who believe that the fertilized egg has all the rights of an actual, functioning human being. I can see where that belief, or that ethos, comes from. And it's a very difficult topic to debate.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2012 06:40:35 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Not really, Ray; it makes as much sense to argue against the premise based on the possibility that a newborn babe might suffer SIDS. The point here is that neither a sperm nor an egg has "realized potential", but once they come together a new entity has come into being that, barring untoward circumstances (such as an topical pregnancy, say, or an abortion) will come to term and enter the world as a human being. IF we are going to argue about exactly when "personhood" appears, when this clump of cells attains its new status, then clearly that status isn't invested in either the egg OR the sperm, pre-conception, but clearly that potential exists in the embryo.
R. |
For all intents and purposes my friend, we are in the same boat, but do not share the same view of the horizon. Having lived the experience I described above, I can appreciate the use of the word potential, but would hasten to point out that only when things are perfect does the full development occur.
In a nutshell, I guess I am pro-choice with limitations...and the mere fact that an egg is fertilized does not meet my personal interpretation of a legally recognized entity.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/27/2012 06:55:10 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
My spouse went through the in-vitro process and four fertilized eggs were implanted. Two were lost naturally, two premature children were born of which one died. |
Then you have outlived 3 of your 4 children. At least you have the one. |
|
|
|
02/27/2012 09:47:37 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No. You are confusing ideas of "potential". A sperm would have theoretical potential. A fertilized egg has realized potential. In other words, if things progress naturally it will produce a grown human. I would also point out the potential is not a potential to be a being or a person but merely a fully formed individual. It already is a being and I assert it is already a person.
Compare and contrast this with your position. Can you elucidate it for us? |
Okay, I think I understand the distinction you're making now. I can only reiterate what I have said before, that the entity "fertilized egg," though possessing human DNA and possessing the ability in the future to become a person, is not now (present tense for the fertilized egg) a person, lacking all the qualities of a person. Your position is that, alone, the particular human DNA with the potential to develop into a fully grown individual at some point in the future is all that is required to qualify as a person. I say it is not enough. |
|
|
|
02/27/2012 10:06:52 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
All you've done is included in your definition that which has the potential to become. It seems to me those very words, "potential to become," denotes that it is not now (present tense for the fertilized egg) -- and I would add has never been. You haven't convinced me that this category of entity should be included in the definition of "person." |
What would you need to be convinced? A legal precedent? I'm no lawyer but it seems like it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to include "potential" in such a definition. If we can do that with tort law, (ex. future/potential earnings is often included as part of the award in wrongful death cases) then surely we can apply this same concept to more valuable things like life itself and not just money, no? |
Well, yes, we can do that. That's exactly what folks on your side of this issue would like to do, isn't it? I wouldn't be in favor of it, though. |
|
|
|
02/27/2012 10:10:04 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
a sperm is not a person (thank goodness) |
What does this statement mean, the "thank goodness" part in particular? |
|
|
|
02/27/2012 10:16:19 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
a sperm is not a person (thank goodness) |
What does this statement mean, the "thank goodness" part in particular? |
I assume he's referencing the fruitless spilling of seed, not wanting that on his conscience :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2012 10:34:18 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
a sperm is not a person (thank goodness) |
What does this statement mean, the "thank goodness" part in particular? |
I assume he's referencing the fruitless spilling of seed, not wanting that on his conscience :-)
R. |
Indeed. lol :-) I thought perhaps he meant something else... |
|
