9 ms·

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

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
        Thorrez 1y ago
        Does the kidney meet the scientific definition of an organism? If we were to survey those biologists, what would they say? Same regarding an infertile person, and cancer. I think scientists have already resolved the questions you're posing. BTW, I don't think the nervous system argument is very common. Pro life people won't use it, because it means early abortions would be ok. Most pro choice people won't use it, because it means abortions would have to be very restricted. The nervous system starts to form at 3 weeks of fetal age (5 weeks gestational age). Most people are in a tail-wagging-the-dog situation where their beliefs about personhood are derived from their belief about whether abortion should be legal or not, instead of the other way around. I see you haven't fallen into that trap. It does seem possible I have fallen into the trap. However, I do think science is on my side.
    - jajko 1y ago
      I have a different opinion than yours. So what if that's some, very narrow definition of life? If I develop a tumor is it also a life? It certainly behaves so. World is full of human life. West (and not only) manufactures failed wars that killed millions of civilians without a blink of an eye (Vietnam, Iraqs, Afghanistan just to name a few) and sends its own people to death. Where are those life-at-all-costs defenders? Such people are the last to force their own viewpoints on protecting life unto literally everybody else. Yet they feel the most righteous due to whatever fucked up morals they have to spread them and attack everybody who dares to think differently. Another story - very similar people (to the point of calling them often the same) have huge mental barriers unplugging their relatives from life support, in situations when there is 0 chance for any sort of recovery and brain is heavily damaged. Wife is a doctor and most of them are religious freaks, ie italian where we live (nothing against you guys, apart from this). They let their closest people suffer horribly (within the limits of their state) for months or even years, put a massive financial burden on whole society just because they don't feel like signing papers for unplugging already dead person, its just some parts of their body is sort of kept alive. Absolutely deplorable weak 'humans', I have no nice word for those. Suffice to say wife saw her share of such folks during her years in hospitals and it was one of the reasons she moved to private sphere.
      - Thorrez 1y ago
        >So what if that's some, very narrow definition of life? It's not just some definition. It's the scientific definition. Lots of people have the motto "I believe in science" but then reject the scientific definition of life when it comes to humans. >If I develop a tumor is it also a life? It certainly behaves so. Well, we could survey those same biologists. I think they would say no. Does it have DNA of a unique person different from the person it's in? I'm not a biologist, but I think no. >World is full of human life. West (and not only) manufactures failed wars that killed millions of civilians without a blink of an eye (Vietnam, Iraqs, Afghanistan just to name a few) and sends its own people to death. Where are those life-at-all-costs defenders? https://www.solidarity-party.org/ https://www.solidarity-party.org/ Their 2020 presidential candidate is so life-at-all-costs that his website TLD is life: https://briancarroll.life https://briancarroll.life . >Such people are the last to force their own viewpoints on protecting life unto literally everybody else. Yet they feel the most righteous due to whatever fucked up morals they have to spread them and attack everybody who dares to think differently. I'm not really sure what you're saying here. You say these people are the last to force their viewpoints on protecting life onto other people, but also they aggressively force their viewpoint on protecting life onto other people? That seems like a contradiction to me.
    - frotaur 1y ago
      Yes, but that is not a good arguments. Example of unique living organisms include bacteria, tardigrades, or paramecia.
      - smeej 1y ago
        Yes, but none of those are of the human species. A Hunan zygote is a unique living human organism, and I think history has shown us we must at least be very, very careful when we start arguing that some unique living human organisms are different enough from the unique living human organisms that matter that it should be morally acceptable to kill them. Maybe this really is different from all the things about which we've later lamented, "Never again!" but we certainly ought not consider that criterion easily satisfied.
        WOTERMEON 1y ago
        “Never again” has been said in a completely different context: fully developed humans killing other developed humans systematically on a huge scale across years. Don’t confuse ethnic cleanings and genocide with fully voluntary abortions, as sad as they may be.
        Thorrez 1y ago
        "Never again" has been said in other contexts as well. E.g. slavery in the US. US slavery didn't exactly meet the definition of ethnic cleansing or genocide. The primary goal was economic. Just because something isn't ethnic cleansing or genocide doesn't mean "never again" doesn't apply. >fully developed humans What's the definition of fully developed? Are physically and mentally disabled people fully developed? There have been large scale killings targeting them in particular. Are babies fully developed? There have been large scale killings that kill them.
        BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
        > unique living human organisms are different enough from the unique living human organisms that matter that it should be morally acceptable to kill them I think what we should care about isn’t human life, but human consciousness. A person in a vegetative state doesn’t suffer when you pull the plug. The difference matters and is unmistakable between large organisms which have gone through a long process of development and tiny ones which have not; we should reasonably presume that only one of the two is conscious given no further evidence. The likely response is the potential argument, and I don’t care about that. I care about human suffering.
- 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.

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
        Thorrez 1y ago
        Does the kidney meet the scientific definition of an organism? If we were to survey those biologists, what would they say? Same regarding an infertile person, and cancer. I think scientists have already resolved the questions you're posing. BTW, I don't think the nervous system argument is very common. Pro life people won't use it, because it means early abortions would be ok. Most pro choice people won't use it, because it means abortions would have to be very restricted. The nervous system starts to form at 3 weeks of fetal age (5 weeks gestational age). Most people are in a tail-wagging-the-dog situation where their beliefs about personhood are derived from their belief about whether abortion should be legal or not, instead of the other way around. I see you haven't fallen into that trap. It does seem possible I have fallen into the trap. However, I do think science is on my side.
  - jajko 1y ago
    I have a different opinion than yours. So what if that's some, very narrow definition of life? If I develop a tumor is it also a life? It certainly behaves so. World is full of human life. West (and not only) manufactures failed wars that killed millions of civilians without a blink of an eye (Vietnam, Iraqs, Afghanistan just to name a few) and sends its own people to death. Where are those life-at-all-costs defenders? Such people are the last to force their own viewpoints on protecting life unto literally everybody else. Yet they feel the most righteous due to whatever fucked up morals they have to spread them and attack everybody who dares to think differently. Another story - very similar people (to the point of calling them often the same) have huge mental barriers unplugging their relatives from life support, in situations when there is 0 chance for any sort of recovery and brain is heavily damaged. Wife is a doctor and most of them are religious freaks, ie italian where we live (nothing against you guys, apart from this). They let their closest people suffer horribly (within the limits of their state) for months or even years, put a massive financial burden on whole society just because they don't feel like signing papers for unplugging already dead person, its just some parts of their body is sort of kept alive. Absolutely deplorable weak 'humans', I have no nice word for those. Suffice to say wife saw her share of such folks during her years in hospitals and it was one of the reasons she moved to private sphere.
    - Thorrez 1y ago
      >So what if that's some, very narrow definition of life? It's not just some definition. It's the scientific definition. Lots of people have the motto "I believe in science" but then reject the scientific definition of life when it comes to humans. >If I develop a tumor is it also a life? It certainly behaves so. Well, we could survey those same biologists. I think they would say no. Does it have DNA of a unique person different from the person it's in? I'm not a biologist, but I think no. >World is full of human life. West (and not only) manufactures failed wars that killed millions of civilians without a blink of an eye (Vietnam, Iraqs, Afghanistan just to name a few) and sends its own people to death. Where are those life-at-all-costs defenders? https://www.solidarity-party.org/ https://www.solidarity-party.org/ Their 2020 presidential candidate is so life-at-all-costs that his website TLD is life: https://briancarroll.life https://briancarroll.life . >Such people are the last to force their own viewpoints on protecting life unto literally everybody else. Yet they feel the most righteous due to whatever fucked up morals they have to spread them and attack everybody who dares to think differently. I'm not really sure what you're saying here. You say these people are the last to force their viewpoints on protecting life onto other people, but also they aggressively force their viewpoint on protecting life onto other people? That seems like a contradiction to me.
  - frotaur 1y ago
    Yes, but that is not a good arguments. Example of unique living organisms include bacteria, tardigrades, or paramecia.
    - smeej 1y ago
      Yes, but none of those are of the human species. A Hunan zygote is a unique living human organism, and I think history has shown us we must at least be very, very careful when we start arguing that some unique living human organisms are different enough from the unique living human organisms that matter that it should be morally acceptable to kill them. Maybe this really is different from all the things about which we've later lamented, "Never again!" but we certainly ought not consider that criterion easily satisfied.
      - WOTERMEON 1y ago
        “Never again” has been said in a completely different context: fully developed humans killing other developed humans systematically on a huge scale across years. Don’t confuse ethnic cleanings and genocide with fully voluntary abortions, as sad as they may be.
        Thorrez 1y ago
        "Never again" has been said in other contexts as well. E.g. slavery in the US. US slavery didn't exactly meet the definition of ethnic cleansing or genocide. The primary goal was economic. Just because something isn't ethnic cleansing or genocide doesn't mean "never again" doesn't apply. >fully developed humans What's the definition of fully developed? Are physically and mentally disabled people fully developed? There have been large scale killings targeting them in particular. Are babies fully developed? There have been large scale killings that kill them.
      - BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
        > unique living human organisms are different enough from the unique living human organisms that matter that it should be morally acceptable to kill them I think what we should care about isn’t human life, but human consciousness. A person in a vegetative state doesn’t suffer when you pull the plug. The difference matters and is unmistakable between large organisms which have gone through a long process of development and tiny ones which have not; we should reasonably presume that only one of the two is conscious given no further evidence. The likely response is the potential argument, and I don’t care about that. I care about human suffering.
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.