6 ms·

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.
      - ookdatnog 1y ago
        > 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. If a definition exists that avoids all these edge cases, please provide it. I am not aware of a definition of "organism" that would resolve all the problems in your stance. > Most pro choice people won't use it, because it means abortions would have to be very restricted. The most common pro-choice argument is based on bodily autonomy, for which the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant. It suffices to observe that there is no other situation where the law prioritizes one's duty to care for another over one's bodily autonomy, so even if the fetus is a person, the state cannot force you to carry them to term. So you are technically correct in stating that it is rarely used as a defense for the pro-choice position, but not "because it means abortions would have to be very restricted". In the bodily autonomy argument, the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant. I agree with the bodily autonomy argument and the broader pro-choice position, but in this case I'm not really making a political argument, but a philosophical one, which is: it's a mistake to strongly identify personhood with the property of "being an organism" / "being alive".
        Thorrez 1y ago
        >If a definition exists that avoids all these edge cases, please provide it. I am not aware of a definition of "organism" that would resolve all the problems in your stance. One way to define a human is any living entity that is either an adult human, or will/would grow into an adult human as long as no problem has happened or will happen to the entity. > It suffices to observe that there is no other situation where the law prioritizes one's duty to care for another over one's bodily autonomy The draft. And a lot of other military rules. Another example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_captain_goes_down_with_the_ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_captain_goes_down_with_the... . The captain has a duty to save passengers first before saving self. >In the bodily autonomy argument, the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant. I don't think that's right. Let's say there are 2 people: A and B. Both are innocent. Person A has some bodily suffering. The only way to solve it is to kill person B. So the options are to restore person A to full bodily health and completely destroy person B's bodily health (violating person B's bodily autonomy completely) or to leave the situation as-is, where person A has has only partial bodily health but person B has full bodily health (violating person A's bodily autonomy partially). I think the correct option is to leave the situation as-is, because that violates bodily autonomy the least. Of course even better is for other people to give aid to person A to reduce the suffering as much as possible without hurting person B.
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.

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.
    - ookdatnog 1y ago
      > 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. If a definition exists that avoids all these edge cases, please provide it. I am not aware of a definition of "organism" that would resolve all the problems in your stance. > Most pro choice people won't use it, because it means abortions would have to be very restricted. The most common pro-choice argument is based on bodily autonomy, for which the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant. It suffices to observe that there is no other situation where the law prioritizes one's duty to care for another over one's bodily autonomy, so even if the fetus is a person, the state cannot force you to carry them to term. So you are technically correct in stating that it is rarely used as a defense for the pro-choice position, but not "because it means abortions would have to be very restricted". In the bodily autonomy argument, the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant. I agree with the bodily autonomy argument and the broader pro-choice position, but in this case I'm not really making a political argument, but a philosophical one, which is: it's a mistake to strongly identify personhood with the property of "being an organism" / "being alive".
      - Thorrez 1y ago
        >If a definition exists that avoids all these edge cases, please provide it. I am not aware of a definition of "organism" that would resolve all the problems in your stance. One way to define a human is any living entity that is either an adult human, or will/would grow into an adult human as long as no problem has happened or will happen to the entity. > It suffices to observe that there is no other situation where the law prioritizes one's duty to care for another over one's bodily autonomy The draft. And a lot of other military rules. Another example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_captain_goes_down_with_the_ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_captain_goes_down_with_the... . The captain has a duty to save passengers first before saving self. >In the bodily autonomy argument, the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant. I don't think that's right. Let's say there are 2 people: A and B. Both are innocent. Person A has some bodily suffering. The only way to solve it is to kill person B. So the options are to restore person A to full bodily health and completely destroy person B's bodily health (violating person B's bodily autonomy completely) or to leave the situation as-is, where person A has has only partial bodily health but person B has full bodily health (violating person A's bodily autonomy partially). I think the correct option is to leave the situation as-is, because that violates bodily autonomy the least. Of course even better is for other people to give aid to person A to reduce the suffering as much as possible without hurting person B.

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.