For this case I would go back to simple biology and say the a human sperm is not complete simply because it lacks another 23 single chromosomes to have a pair of 23 chromosomes.
I know right? I developed this idea along time ago. I thing it would make an interesting book or comic. I mean imagine what kind of world would that be. What if the government take "care" of those children. How society would be affected by them, etc.
For this case I would go back to simple biology and say the a human sperm is not complete simply because it lacks another 23 single chromosomes to have a pair of 23 chromosomes.
Good, a scientific definition. You didn't answer the second question though - why does it matter whether or not it is complete? Both a human sperm and a human zygote have some chance of partially defining a human being. In other words, just as abortion can remove a human being's chance at life, so can preventing fertilization.
I would consider any embryonic cell... that rose directly from the union of a male gamete and a female gameteto be human.
However, I would consider [the artificial embryo] human.
It seems you need to amend at least one of these.
But alas, would you destroy something that took you a lot of effort to make? Trust me it would take a lot of effort to make a human being from scratch.
When did I ever say anything about destroying it? By your definition, it is not human life.
Your second question about masturbation made me laugh, I mean really, a sperm in the wrong environment by itself does not have any potential at all.
On the contrary, it has all the potential a sperm cell could ever have. I could fertilize any egg in the world with it, if I so chose. Is that not potential?
It is not even a diploid cell; it can't divide.An embryo on the other hand divides constantly. But I will say that in the right environment each sperm fight to survive and become one with its egg and that is something to be admire.
If it can fight to survive, is it not alive? If it's not alive, why do you admire it? It's just a ball rolling up the entropy hill.
You can only kill what is alive. What does it mean to be alive? According to biology at its simplest form it needs to eat, reproduce and die.
No. There are several definitions of life. What about viruses? Are they alive?
I would not consider sperm as a biological entity at the moment since it does not absorb nutrients from its environment (eats), can't replicate (meiosis 2 is not replication). However, I need to do some more research and I need to take the bus now ciao :P
Sperm are cells that have complex organization and carry DNA. They respond to stimuli. They're human cells. You really think they're not alive?
For this case I would go back to simple biology and say the a human sperm is not complete simply because it lacks another 23 single chromosomes to have a pair of 23 chromosomes.
Good, a scientific definition. You didn't answer the second question though - why does it matter whether or not it is complete? Both a human sperm and a human zygote have some chance of partially defining a human being. In other words, just as abortion can remove a human being's chance at life, so can preventing fertilization.
It matters a lot, at least for me. If you think about it a sperm is as "alive" as a virus, it is just a biological entity it has no potential until it fuses with its egg, and the same goes for the egg. While the newly formed cell that has its 23 chromosomes is dividing, producing all kind of proteins for its survival, absorbing nutrients from its environment and constantly replacing dying cells. Many times one would rely on logic to answer hard questions, but in my case most of my answers would come from my heart so I am sorry if you are not reading what you want me to write.
I would consider any embryonic cell... thatrose directly from the union of a male gamete and a female gameteto be human.
However, I would consider [the artificial embryo] human.
It seems you need to amend at least one of these.
But alas, would you destroy something that took you a lot of effort to make? Trust me it would take a lot of effort to make a humanbeingfrom scratch.
When did I ever say anything about destroying it? By your definition, it is not human life.
Your second question about masturbation made me laugh, I mean really, a sperm in the wrongenvironmentby itself does not have any potential at all.
On the contrary, it has all the potential a sperm cell could ever have. I could fertilize any egg in the world with it, if I so chose. Is that not potential?
Itis not even a diploid cell;it can't divide.Anembryoonthe other hand divides constantly. But I will say that in the rightenvironmenteach sperm fight to survive and become onewithits egg and that is something to be admire.
If it can fight to survive, is it not alive? If it's not alive, why do you admire it? It's just a ball rolling up the entropy hill.
You can only kill what is alive. What does it mean to be alive?Accordingto biology at its simplest form it needs to eat, reproduce and die.
No. There are several definitions of life. What about viruses? Are they alive?
I wouldnotconsider sperm as a biological entity at the moment since it does not absorb nutrients from itsenvironment(eats), can't replicate (meiosis2 is not replication). However, I need to do some more research and I need to take the bus now ciao :P
Sperm are cells that have complex organization and carry DNA. They respond to stimuli. They'rehuman cells.You really think they're not alive? I think I answered most of your questions on my previous statement. I don't want to be redundant.
You didn't answer the second question though - why does it matter whether or not it is complete? Both a human sperm and a human zygote have some chance of partially defining a human being. In other words, just as abortion can remove a human being's chance at life, so can preventing fertilization.
It matters a lot, at least for me. If you think about it a sperm is as "alive" as a virus, it is just a biological entity it has no potential until it fuses with its egg, and the same goes for the egg.You're still stuck on your weird definition of "potential." No-one else here understands your usage of the term, you're going to have to explain it. However, I will say that no biological entity can exist independently of its environment. Only a tiny proportion of bacteria can exist independently of other life - and even then, they still need an outside source of energy.
Many bacteria can exist independently for their environment, many would become dormant as spores and seeds can go dormant for a long time in plants. Life always finds a way. Viruses in the other hand need to hijack the biology of another organism in order to replicate and by doing that they end that organism once their replication and maturation cycle is over. Viruses can't do anything by themselves just like sperms. and eggs. If you want a definition for potential I have one : The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being. Or something possessing the capacity for growth or development. A sperm do not have the capacity of growth or development. Well, if you want we can continue later. Is late and I am going to sleep. Ciao
Many bacteria can exist independently for their environment, many would become dormant as spores and seeds can go dormant for a long time in plants. Life always finds a way.
Okay, perhaps I wasn't entirely correct - I should have said "survive" rather than "exist." No energy -> no reproduction -> no survival. I could probably still justify the first statement with some physics, but it's pointless. So here's my revised statement: Without an outside source of energy (which is part of their environment), long-term survival is impossible. Entropy will see to that.
Viruses in the other hand need to hijack the biology of another organism in order to replicate and by doing that they end that organism once their replication and maturation cycle is over. Viruses can't do anything by themselves just like sperms. and eggs. and humans.
If you want a definition for potential I have one : The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being. Or something possessing the capacity for growth or development.
There we go, you've finally explained yourself. The critical part to your argument is the fact that the ability is inherent. I don't remember you mentioning this before, perhaps I missed it. However, even a fully grown adult human does not have the inherent capacity to survive, nor any other life-form - they rely on their environment.
A sperm can't live for very long without an egg. A human can't live without water, food, or air to breathe. Everything is just sub-atomic particles arranged in different configurations. Matter is energy and energy is matter. All matter and energy has a non-zero probability of being arranged with other matter and energy into a configuration that we would categorize as a living organism. At what probability do you consider the potential to be reached? Babies are made of the same carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. that dirt is made out of. Dirt has a potential to form life. A fertilized egg contains the exact same atoms as a separate sperm and egg. Why are those atoms special when combined, but not special when separate? Also keep in mind that even a fertilized egg has no potential. The only potential it has is if a mother grows it. It's just as a seed for a plant has no potential unless it gets water, dirt, and light.
Any matter is potentially a human in the future, it just isn't now, so, is humanity or anything an abstraction? and, if so, what would you consider the defining point that takes an organism or machine from being non-human to human? If something is potentially something, does it mean it is as good as the thing it will be?
Philosophy aside, what are the practical implications of abortion? Can you propose situations where abortion shouldn't be justified on a country wide scale? What safeguards would you put in place?
Philosophy aside, what are the practical implications of abortion? Can you propose situations where abortion shouldn't be justified on a country wide scale? What safeguards would you put in place?
Philosophy aside, what are the practical implications of abortion? Can you propose situations where abortion shouldn't be justified on a country wide scale? What safeguards would you put in place?
No coat-hangers for starters.
Apart from the obvious ones. Assume this is being done by doctors.
Okay. I'm going to attempt sum up Erwin's argument for him, as it might make this easier for himself, and probably for everyone else.
1) All human life is sacrosanct 2) From the earliest stages of development, an embryo is both alive and human. 3) Therefore, the life of an embryo is sacrosanct.
He also states that this argument does not apply to sperm because sperm is not alive.
To add more specificity, Erwin's definition of human life
I assume that since you are quoting me you are asking me what qualifies as human life. I can only answer for myself, from what I have learned through my life and experiences. So here it is: I would consider any embryonic cell with 23 (or more, due to mutation or weakness of their spindles) pairs of chromosomes that rose directly from the union of a male gamete and a female gamete.
I'd rather not use this definition, since it's overcomplicated and flawed, so I'd stick with the scientific definition of homo sapiens.
In that case, 2) is correct, and it is also valid to say that 1) and 2) imply 3). In order to disagree with Erwin, we must either disagree with the definition of "human" used here (which would invalidate premise #2), or disagree with premise #1, or both (though this is unnecessary).
The primary contention that has been posed by other posters is that premise #1 is indeed wrong and unjustified. They argue that merely being human is neither a necessary (i.e. some non-humans could count) nor sufficient (i.e. some humans don't) condition to deserve preservation. Instead, they say that in order for a life-form to deserve preservation, it is necessary and sufficient that it is sentient. Since an embryo is not sentient, abortion is morally acceptable.
Erwin disagrees with sentience as a necessary and sufficient criterion. Instead, he picks "potential to be human" as his criterion. In particular, he says that
You see, I look at their potential and not at what they are. This universe of ours have infinite possibilities for us and I ask myself who am I to decide who lives and who dies? I am no one, I do not have that right to stop someone else life.
However, Erwin has been unable to counter the reductio ad absurdum that, by this token, allowing the loss of an individual sperm is destroying a potential future human being (and almost certainly a genetically unique one).
Here's another couple of ideas: 1) We define death as the point at which the brain ceases to function, even if the rest of the body is being kept alive externally. What is the difference between an unthinking human fetus being kept alive by it's mother and a brain-dead human body being kept alive artificially? Sorry if that was so morbid.
2) Are the people to argue about abortion the people most effected by legislation?
If something is potentially something, does it mean it is as good as the thing it will be?
In other words, no. The value of its potential to be something is its probability of being that thing multiplied by the value it would have as that thing. For overall value one must consider all possibilities, though.
For this case I would go back to simple biology and say the a human sperm is not complete simply because it lacks another 23 single chromosomes to have a pair of 23 chromosomes.
Good, a scientific definition. You didn't answer the second question though - why does it matter whether or not it is complete? Both a human sperm and a human zygote have some chance of partially defining a human being. In other words, just as abortion can remove a human being's chance at life, so can preventing fertilization.
An organism can thrive in a proper enviroment, a sperm is not an organism. It stops being an sperm at the moment it fuses with an egg. At the moment a sperm fuses with an egg it becomes and organism that has everything to become a human baby. Another way I see it is for example if I see an orphan kid, that has no one that is looking for him, that is looking right at me in a cold winter on the corner of the streets, should I just go ahead to do whatever I was doing and leave it there to die or should I help him out until he/she is able to protect him/herself? I can truly say that if I see something like that I don't have the heart to let a child on the cold streets on a dark winter night.
An organism can thrive in a proper enviroment, a sperm is not an organism. It stops being an sperm at the moment it fuses with an egg. At the moment a sperm fuses with an egg it becomes and organism that has everything to become a human baby.
But it doesn't have everything. If you put it in a vacuum, it will not become a baby. if you put it in the grass, it won't become a baby. It needs to sit in a womb for months and months and acquire more matter and energy from the mother in order to grow.
An organism can thrive in a proper enviroment, a sperm is not an organism. It stops being an sperm at the moment it fuses with an egg. At the moment a sperm fuses with an egg it becomes and organism that has everything to become a human baby.
But it doesn't have everything. If you put it in a vacuum, it will not become a baby. if you put it in the grass, it won't become a baby. It needs to sit in a womb for months and months and acquire more matter and energy from the mother in order to grow.
That is why I put the example. I mean, human beigns are fragil creatures. You leave a kid or a baby on the streets and he/she will die.
That is why I put the example. I mean, human beigns are fragil creatures. You leave a kid or a baby on the streets and he/she will die.
That's no different than an unfertilized sperm or egg.
If I take care of an egg, or sperm, I can keep it "alive" for a long time. By adding matter to it, it can eventually live on its own. A fertilized egg contains the exact same atoms as a separate sperm and egg. What difference does it make if they are together or not? The potential is no different.
An organism can thrive in a proper enviroment, a sperm is not an organism. It stops being an sperm at the moment it fuses with an egg. At the moment a sperm fuses with an egg it becomes and organism that has everything to become a human baby.
But it is not yet a human baby in the same way the a sperm and egg on their way to collision are not yet a human baby. Also, could I get your thoughts on this post?
1) We define death as the point at which the brain ceases to function, even if the rest of the body is being kept alive externally.
It's kind of crazy, because when you die, you're still mostly alive. It's when your brain stops functions, and the heart stops pumping, that all your cells no longer get oxygen. However, they still stay alive for a while, and can survive without the brain. It's just that we still haven't managed to unlock all those cells that are still alive, although I don't know the exact science behind it. We're dead, yet we have the potential to still live.
But you will die very quickly without assistance, as would a fetus, so the point still stands. We define death as the brain ceasing to function, do we not? Lets say then, both a brain-dead body life support and a fetus have no mid to long term ability to live without assistance, should they not be classed the same?
Addition: We define the point at which we die as being the point where there is no brain activity and could not survive without help. Can the same not be said for a fetus before it develops brain activity?
That is why I put the example. I mean, human beigns are fragil creatures. You leave a kid or a baby on the streets and he/she will die.
That's no different than an unfertilized sperm or egg.
If I take care of an egg, or sperm, I can keep it "alive" for a long time. By adding matter to it, it can eventually live on its own. A fertilized egg contains the exact same atoms as a separate sperm and egg. What difference does it make if they are together or not? The potential is no different.
What? It is impossible for an egg to live on its own just by adding matter to it. Evolution didn't go that way for humans, maybe for plants, insects, eukaryiotic unicelular organisms and reptiles but not in humans. You are asking something that can't be answer in our life time, but it is a good thought experiment.
An organism can thrive in a proper environment, a sperm is not an organism. It stops being an sperm at the moment it fuses with an egg. At the moment a sperm fuses with an egg it becomes and organism that has everything to become a human baby.
But it is notyeta human baby in the same way the a sperm and egg on their way to collision are notyeta human baby. Also, could I get your thoughts onthis post?
I believe that when an organism is capable to obtain nutrients from its surroundings, and have metabolic functions is alive. A brain dead person is dying it can't obtain nutrients from its surroundings by itself, it can't even digest them. However, I will say that I believe that with technology it will be possible to revive part of the brain. You see, I do not know if it affects me because I can't see the future of the aborted fetuses of now or the present of the aborted fetuses of past. I have never argue about abortion. I just answer the questions I was asked to answer, I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I am just saying what I believe and what I would do. The law is the law and one must respect it. However, I thing that the funny thing about law is that it changes according to society.
Comments
Many times one would rely on logic to answer hard questions, but in my case most of my answers would come from my heart so I am sorry if you are not reading what you want me to write.
I think I answered most of your questions on my previous statement. I don't want to be redundant.
If you want a definition for potential I have one : The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being. Or something possessing the capacity for growth or development.
A sperm do not have the capacity of growth or development.
Well, if you want we can continue later. Is late and I am going to sleep. Ciao
Without an outside source of energy (which is part of their environment), long-term survival is impossible. Entropy will see to that. There we go, you've finally explained yourself. The critical part to your argument is the fact that the ability is inherent. I don't remember you mentioning this before, perhaps I missed it. However, even a fully grown adult human does not have the inherent capacity to survive, nor any other life-form - they rely on their environment.
If something is potentially something, does it mean it is as good as the thing it will be?
Philosophy aside, what are the practical implications of abortion? Can you propose situations where abortion shouldn't be justified on a country wide scale? What safeguards would you put in place?
In that case, 2) is correct, and it is also valid to say that 1) and 2) imply 3). In order to disagree with Erwin, we must either disagree with the definition of "human" used here (which would invalidate premise #2), or disagree with premise #1, or both (though this is unnecessary).
The primary contention that has been posed by other posters is that premise #1 is indeed wrong and unjustified. They argue that merely being human is neither a necessary (i.e. some non-humans could count) nor sufficient (i.e. some humans don't) condition to deserve preservation. Instead, they say that in order for a life-form to deserve preservation, it is necessary and sufficient that it is sentient. Since an embryo is not sentient, abortion is morally acceptable.
Erwin disagrees with sentience as a necessary and sufficient criterion. Instead, he picks "potential to be human" as his criterion. In particular, he says that However, Erwin has been unable to counter the reductio ad absurdum that, by this token, allowing the loss of an individual sperm is destroying a potential future human being (and almost certainly a genetically unique one).
1) We define death as the point at which the brain ceases to function, even if the rest of the body is being kept alive externally. What is the difference between an unthinking human fetus being kept alive by it's mother and a brain-dead human body being kept alive artificially?
Sorry if that was so morbid.
2) Are the people to argue about abortion the people most effected by legislation?
In other words, no. The value of its potential to be something is its probability of being that thing multiplied by the value it would have as that thing. For overall value one must consider all possibilities, though.
Another way I see it is for example if I see an orphan kid, that has no one that is looking for him, that is looking right at me in a cold winter on the corner of the streets, should I just go ahead to do whatever I was doing and leave it there to die or should I help him out until he/she is able to protect him/herself? I can truly say that if I see something like that I don't have the heart to let a child on the cold streets on a dark winter night.
If I take care of an egg, or sperm, I can keep it "alive" for a long time. By adding matter to it, it can eventually live on its own. A fertilized egg contains the exact same atoms as a separate sperm and egg. What difference does it make if they are together or not? The potential is no different.
Also, could I get your thoughts on this post?
Lets say then, both a brain-dead body life support and a fetus have no mid to long term ability to live without assistance, should they not be classed the same?
Addition: We define the point at which we die as being the point where there is no brain activity and could not survive without help. Can the same not be said for a fetus before it develops brain activity?
You see, I do not know if it affects me because I can't see the future of the aborted fetuses of now or the present of the aborted fetuses of past. I have never argue about abortion. I just answer the questions I was asked to answer, I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I am just saying what I believe and what I would do. The law is the law and one must respect it. However, I thing that the funny thing about law is that it changes according to society.