8 ms·

Many ethicists value the continuation of someone's--anyone's--(literal) life over the continuation of anyone else's lifestyle. I'm not arguing whether you shou

by smeej 1y ago

Many ethicists value the continuation of someone's--anyone's--(literal) life over the continuation of anyone else's lifestyle. I'm not arguing whether you should or shouldn't agree with them, nor saying anything about in which cases. It's just one of the primary things going on in the minds of those people, and you said you wondered.

advisedwang 1y ago
Down screening is done at like 16 weeks. At 16 weeks that's hardly a life. Also you are being very dismissive by hand-waving away lifestyle. Quality of life is a significant factor in medical decisions. Many people choose short high-qol lives over longer low-qol lives.
- BalinKing 1y ago
  That’s a different argument though, because this scenario is specifically about weighing one’s life versus a different person’s lifestyle.
- Thorrez 1y ago
  >Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/
  - BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
    It’s alive as a zygote, so without even looking at the paper I don’t disagree. The person you responded to said “hardly a life” though, so I don’t think they literally mean is it a cell that’s alive.
    - Thorrez 1y ago
      It's a unique living organism. A life. Different from a skin cell which isn't a unique organism.
      - ookdatnog 1y ago
        Would you consider a chimera resulting from the fusion of two embryos as two people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)
        Thorrez 1y ago
        I would say it's similar to one person dying and another person getting a ton of transplants from that person.
        ookdatnog 1y ago
        That does not resolve your problem, it only shuffles it around. You are defending the case that personhood begins at conception, and your argument supporting this case is "It's a unique living organism. A life. Different from a skin cell which isn't a unique organism." If I get a kidney from someone else, and that person dies, according to your own argument, that kidney is a person. These cells are metabolizing and dividing, therefore alive, and they are unique with respect to the rest of my body. Perhaps you'll argue that the kidney isn't an organism because it has no means of reproducing itself. To that I have two counterarguments: - The argument implies that infertile humans are not persons. - Nature contains every horror imaginable, including clonally transmissible cancers [0]. If my body develops such a cancer and it jumps to someone else, then I die, according to your definition my cancer that's colonizing someone else's body is a person. I won't claim to know what defines personhood, but an obvious prerequisite (in the context of human life) is the existence of a centralized nervous system. If I am beheaded, and my headless body is placed on life support while my brain is destroyed, I, as a person, am dead, even if my body is alive. If my brain is surgically removed and placed on life support in a vat, and allowed to interface with the world somehow, then I, as a person, am still alive (whether such a life is worth living is a different question). Accepting this prerequisite resolves the chimera problem, the kidney problem, the infertility problem and the transmissible cancer, and it results in the conclusion that a zygote is not yet a person, as it does not have a nervous system. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - altcognito 1y ago
    Just achieving the definition of alive doesn't grant you power over other human beings. It is not personhood. Ethics are more complicated than a black and white definition of when a magical boundary has been achieved.
    - Thorrez 1y ago
      I agree the personhood question is more complicated than the definition of life. And I agree that ethics are more complicated than just the definition of personhood. However, regarding the question of personhood, I wonder, when does it begin? Does it begin at birth? I think not, because a fetus a few days before birth is essentially no different from a newborn in terms of development and abilities. There's quite a wide variance in how soon or late a baby can be born and survive. Does it begin some time between fertilization and birth? I think not, because that entire time is a period of continual growth. There's no instant where the fetus is suddenly transformed. The fetus is getting older, developing. Similar to how a born baby gets older and develops. If personhood were to begin in this stage, it would have to be gradual, meaning partial personhood for some period of time. But that doesn't make sense. How can someone be a partial person? I'm not talking about a magical boundary. I'm talking about (a) a biological boundary, and (b) the question of personhood, neither of which are magic.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- gigatree 1y ago
  Ehh, if you actually look up what a 16 week fetus looks like and is capable of you wouldn’t say that. It has eyes, ears, hands that open and close. Basically an avocado-sized baby.
- smeej 1y ago
  I'm not doing any such thing. I'm just answering what's in the minds of many ethicists.
- schwartzworld 1y ago
  Even younger now. Initial screening is done at like 8 weeks by extracting the mothers blood and examining the chromosomes in the fetal cells.
rasmul 1y ago
I love animals, I love people, I love dancing Down-syndrome people. The question is who is responsible for them and what it means to those or society. Let those ethicists take care of a Down-syndrome person one year, then ask them again. About lifestyle and such. Ethicize can everybody. The real questions are more down to earth. Pun not intended. By the way, my partner and I are of different views and because of her I know there are very different types, some are totally self sufficient and work. As always, truth is somewhere in between. Do not eradicate, let people choose. There will be people who terminate, others will not. Let those people pay a share who take the risk and then put their child to social care. But be human and society should help and pay a big ahsre too. How much? I have no idea. We would need the exact numbers, other social projects, a good discussion forum, tests before people comment. I probably have no ida about Down syndrome and still, I am just being commenting. I think generally a big misunderstanding that there is one solution and one way. We should always just find a middle way, listening to each other, learning, voting, discussing. Keeping freedom of choice and responsibility of own choices in balance.
mbar84 1y ago
I've heard this expressed as existence versus life. Nobody owes it to to give up their life for the life of another, let alone if all that can be hoped for is the mere existence of another.
timeon 1y ago
> Many ethicists Isn't it only just Vegans?

by smeej 1y ago

advisedwang 1y ago

Down screening is done at like 16 weeks. At 16 weeks that's hardly a life. Also you are being very dismissive by hand-waving away lifestyle. Quality of life is a significant factor in medical decisions. Many people choose short high-qol lives over longer low-qol lives.

BalinKing 1y ago
That’s a different argument though, because this scenario is specifically about weighing one’s life versus a different person’s lifestyle.
Thorrez 1y ago
>Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/
- BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
  It’s alive as a zygote, so without even looking at the paper I don’t disagree. The person you responded to said “hardly a life” though, so I don’t think they literally mean is it a cell that’s alive.
  - Thorrez 1y ago
    It's a unique living organism. A life. Different from a skin cell which isn't a unique organism.
    - ookdatnog 1y ago
      Would you consider a chimera resulting from the fusion of two embryos as two people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)
      - Thorrez 1y ago
        I would say it's similar to one person dying and another person getting a ton of transplants from that person.
        ookdatnog 1y ago
        That does not resolve your problem, it only shuffles it around. You are defending the case that personhood begins at conception, and your argument supporting this case is "It's a unique living organism. A life. Different from a skin cell which isn't a unique organism." If I get a kidney from someone else, and that person dies, according to your own argument, that kidney is a person. These cells are metabolizing and dividing, therefore alive, and they are unique with respect to the rest of my body. Perhaps you'll argue that the kidney isn't an organism because it has no means of reproducing itself. To that I have two counterarguments: - The argument implies that infertile humans are not persons. - Nature contains every horror imaginable, including clonally transmissible cancers [0]. If my body develops such a cancer and it jumps to someone else, then I die, according to your definition my cancer that's colonizing someone else's body is a person. I won't claim to know what defines personhood, but an obvious prerequisite (in the context of human life) is the existence of a centralized nervous system. If I am beheaded, and my headless body is placed on life support while my brain is destroyed, I, as a person, am dead, even if my body is alive. If my brain is surgically removed and placed on life support in a vat, and allowed to interface with the world somehow, then I, as a person, am still alive (whether such a life is worth living is a different question). Accepting this prerequisite resolves the chimera problem, the kidney problem, the infertility problem and the transmissible cancer, and it results in the conclusion that a zygote is not yet a person, as it does not have a nervous system. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- altcognito 1y ago
  Just achieving the definition of alive doesn't grant you power over other human beings. It is not personhood. Ethics are more complicated than a black and white definition of when a magical boundary has been achieved.
  - Thorrez 1y ago
    I agree the personhood question is more complicated than the definition of life. And I agree that ethics are more complicated than just the definition of personhood. However, regarding the question of personhood, I wonder, when does it begin? Does it begin at birth? I think not, because a fetus a few days before birth is essentially no different from a newborn in terms of development and abilities. There's quite a wide variance in how soon or late a baby can be born and survive. Does it begin some time between fertilization and birth? I think not, because that entire time is a period of continual growth. There's no instant where the fetus is suddenly transformed. The fetus is getting older, developing. Similar to how a born baby gets older and develops. If personhood were to begin in this stage, it would have to be gradual, meaning partial personhood for some period of time. But that doesn't make sense. How can someone be a partial person? I'm not talking about a magical boundary. I'm talking about (a) a biological boundary, and (b) the question of personhood, neither of which are magic.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
gigatree 1y ago
Ehh, if you actually look up what a 16 week fetus looks like and is capable of you wouldn’t say that. It has eyes, ears, hands that open and close. Basically an avocado-sized baby.
smeej 1y ago
I'm not doing any such thing. I'm just answering what's in the minds of many ethicists.
schwartzworld 1y ago
Even younger now. Initial screening is done at like 8 weeks by extracting the mothers blood and examining the chromosomes in the fetal cells.

rasmul 1y ago

I love animals, I love people, I love dancing Down-syndrome people. The question is who is responsible for them and what it means to those or society. Let those ethicists take care of a Down-syndrome person one year, then ask them again. About lifestyle and such. Ethicize can everybody. The real questions are more down to earth. Pun not intended. By the way, my partner and I are of different views and because of her I know there are very different types, some are totally self sufficient and work. As always, truth is somewhere in between. Do not eradicate, let people choose. There will be people who terminate, others will not. Let those people pay a share who take the risk and then put their child to social care. But be human and society should help and pay a big ahsre too. How much? I have no idea. We would need the exact numbers, other social projects, a good discussion forum, tests before people comment. I probably have no ida about Down syndrome and still, I am just being commenting. I think generally a big misunderstanding that there is one solution and one way. We should always just find a middle way, listening to each other, learning, voting, discussing. Keeping freedom of choice and responsibility of own choices in balance.

mbar84 1y ago

I've heard this expressed as existence versus life. Nobody owes it to to give up their life for the life of another, let alone if all that can be hoped for is the mere existence of another.

timeon 1y ago

> Many ethicists Isn't it only just Vegans?