5 ms·

I agree with that point of view, but I think you need to distinguish between "life" and a "human being". "Life" in general is notoriously tricky to define preci

I agree with that point of view, but I think you need to distinguish between "life" and a "human being". "Life" in general is notoriously tricky to define precisely. It is, for example, perfectly possible to amputate someone's hand an keep it alive by feeding it some type of artificial blood; not sure if it's currently possible with the state of technology, but there is nothing stopping this in principle. I think it would be accurate to say that this hand is "alive", but is it also a human being worthy of the same protections that you or I have? I don't think many people would argue for this. You don't need to think of exotic experiments either; we shed all sort of living biological material all the time, and no one is concerned with the rights of this. So when does a "human being" begin? I don't have any clear answer; that question is even more difficult than trying to define "life". But I do think it's important to think of it in these terms.

Nrnfkfnrn 4y ago
The source does mention the beginning of a "human being" "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm with a secondary oocyte and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  At the risk of being overly pedantic and engaging on semantics, it does say "the beginning of a human being", rather than "human being". i.e. a piece of metal might be the beginning of a sword, but is not actually a sword. This is a very tricky discussion because definitions and semantics are so important, and not everyone agrees on them. The main point I attempted to make in my previous post is that it would advance the debate to move away from these type of semantics, and rather engage on more fundamental – and harder – questions like "when are rights conferred to a (human) being?"
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  The argument is made easier by the way we consider the end of human being. Which is why we tend to not keep former people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan. Applying the same rule to beginning of human life arrives at the standard in Roe v Wade of around 12 weeks, which is to the best of our knowledge when higher brain functions can appear in a fetus, becoming potentially sentient human being.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    > Which is why we tend to not keep former people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan. Is there a well defined reason for this or is it actually a question of limited resources? Would we keep people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan if the cost was 0? Why or why not? A pragmatic viewpoint probably gives a quick answer but a ideological viewpoint could go eitherway.

Nrnfkfnrn 4y ago

The source does mention the beginning of a "human being" "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm with a secondary oocyte and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

Beltalowda 4y ago
At the risk of being overly pedantic and engaging on semantics, it does say "the beginning of a human being", rather than "human being". i.e. a piece of metal might be the beginning of a sword, but is not actually a sword. This is a very tricky discussion because definitions and semantics are so important, and not everyone agrees on them. The main point I attempted to make in my previous post is that it would advance the debate to move away from these type of semantics, and rather engage on more fundamental – and harder – questions like "when are rights conferred to a (human) being?"
AstralStorm 4y ago
The argument is made easier by the way we consider the end of human being. Which is why we tend to not keep former people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan. Applying the same rule to beginning of human life arrives at the standard in Roe v Wade of around 12 weeks, which is to the best of our knowledge when higher brain functions can appear in a fetus, becoming potentially sentient human being.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  > Which is why we tend to not keep former people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan. Is there a well defined reason for this or is it actually a question of limited resources? Would we keep people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan if the cost was 0? Why or why not? A pragmatic viewpoint probably gives a quick answer but a ideological viewpoint could go eitherway.