About Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception...

[Storm]

In my judgement, you are indeed being hostile. I ask that if you cannot refrain from unnecessarily mean spirited remarks this morning that you get out of my thread until such time as you are confident you can refrain.

What have I said that was "unnecessarily mean spirited?" Because, honestly, I've refrained from quite a few already.

 

[McBell]

I neither articulated or even hinted at the point you're attributing to me.

yes you did:

Because until they do join, they are no more distinct organisms than skin cells.

From that I got the impression that you see all sperm as the same.


They are not all the same if for no other reason than the sperm determines the sex of the child.

9-10ths_Penguin went into even more detail as to how they are not the same.

 

[Storm]

yes you did:From that I got the impression that you see all sperm as the same.

How, exactly?

They are not all the same if for no other reason than the sperm determines the sex of the child.

Uncontested. The fact that I saw no need to state the obvious biological fact which had not been questioned does not, to my mind, indicate ignorance, much less rejection.

9-10ths_Penguin went into even more detail as to how they are not the same.

Which was entirely unnecessary, since I never said they were. I said they were not distinct individuals, no more, no less.

 

[McBell]

How, exactly?

Because sperm cells are more "individual" than skin cells.

 

[Storm]

Because sperm cells are more "individual" than skin cells.

Not as organisms, they're not. There's more variation, sure. But since they lack even a complete and functional genetic code of their own, I don't see how anyone could argue that they're separate organisms. I already pointed that out, and you totally ignored it.

 

[Penumbra]

I assume for the sake of this thread that no one on RF would actually argue that human life begins at conception, and instead that people who appear to argue that human life begins at conception actually mean to say something along the lines of individual human life begins at conception.

If so, if individual human life begins at conception, then precisely what makes it an individual human life"? What does that word "individual" mean in this context? And what doesn't it mean?

And why is the presence of an individual human life a rational basis on which to oppose abortion?

Although this thread is in the debate section, I myself am not so much interested in debating this issue as I am interested in reading the sound answers, if any, that will be offered to those questions.

The creation of the zygote appears to be a somewhat arbitrary point in the process to select as the starting point of individual life, but likely one of the more convenient ones.

A zillion living sperm cells swim towards a living egg. The lives of those are all generally considered unimportant to people, especially considering that all of those zillion sperm cells minus one will die. They're recognized as about as individually valuable as the bacteria we kill with anti-bacterial cleaners or about as valuable as a skin cell or stomach lining cell.

When the sperm and egg merge, it's still a single cell with a high death chance, but genetically it's a full new human cell now. A human cell that has different genetics than the cells of the human mother, and different than any previously existing human being. So I can see why that's a fairly convenient point to pick.

Then later there are stages where the heart starts beating, or when it can first feel pain, or when it first starts moving, or when it's born and takes its first breath, etc. Those are other points where life has sometimes historically been considered to be new individual human life.

 

[Sunstone]

In common language, an organism often refers to any living entity, including such "questionable" organisms as bacteria. If someone wants to restrict their own usage of the word organism in such a fashion that sperm and eggs are not organisms, that's fine. But who has the authority to restrict other people's usage of the word?

The fact is, sperm and eggs are either alive or dead. Thus they belong in the category of "any living entity".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Already addressed in post # 8.

Not really. Declaring that you refuse to consider something is different from actually addressing it.

Sperm and egg cells are genetically distinct from the people who produced them. Yes, they're short-lived, but I don't see what bearing this has on whether we should consider them individuals.

Twins are a fluke, and iirc more likely to be fraternal than identical. I don't know what the actual percentage of monaygotic double births are, buut I see no reason to base the general rule on the proving exception.

I was referring specifically to monozygotic twins. I thought that would have been obvious from the context.

I see no reason to disregard the implications of twins. I think it's a very relevant -and inconvenient - fact that if you set the point of "individuality" at conception, sometimes a whole other individual appears out of nowhere.

 

[Storm]

Then later there are stages where the heart starts beating, or when it can first feel pain, or when it first starts moving, or when it's born and takes its first breath, etc. Those are other points where life has sometimes historically been considered to be new individual human life.

Aren't all those even more arbitrary than conception, though?

I mean, I can see them as superior points of reference for the political issue of abortion, but "when does the organism begin to exist" seems pretty black and white to me.

 

[Sunstone]

The creation of the zygote appears to be a somewhat arbitrary point in the process to select as the starting point of individual life, but likely one of the more convenient ones.

A zillion living sperm cells swim towards a living egg. The lives of those are all generally considered unimportant to people, especially considering that all of those zillion sperm cells minus one will die. They're recognized as about as individually valuable as the bacteria we kill with anti-bacterial cleaners or about as valuable as a skin cell or stomach lining cell.

When the sperm and egg merge, it's still a single cell with a high death chance, but genetically it's a full new human cell now. A human cell that has different genetics than the cells of the human mother, and different than any previously existing human being. So I can see why that's a fairly convenient point to pick.

Then later there are stages where the heart starts beating, or when it can first feel pain, or when it first starts moving, or when it's born and takes its first breath, etc. Those are other points where life has sometimes historically been considered to be new individual human life.

I'm guessing you might believe the "point at which individual human life begins" to be an arbitrary choice for arguing that abortions should not take place after that "point" is reached? If so, I would agree with you. But do you know of any sound arguments for starting from that "point"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not as organisms, they're not. There's more variation, sure. But since they lack even a complete and functional genetic code of their own, I don't see how anyone could argue that they're separate organisms. I already pointed that out, and you totally ignored it.

"Functional" for what, though? A sperm cell is alive. It might not have the stuff to undergo mitosis, but I don't consider mitosis to be something required to be an "organism".

 

[Storm]

Not really. Declaring that you refuse to consider something is different from actually addressing it.

How did I do that, when I pointed out they don't even have a chain of functional DNA? Sure, I dismissed the argument as worthless, but only after pointing out why it's worthless.

Sperm and egg cells are genetically distinct from the people who produced them. Yes, they're short-lived, but I don't see what bearing this has on whether we should consider them individuals.

Only if you consider "incomplete to the point of non-functional" to be "genetically distinct." It's different, but that difference comes from the biological fact that they're not individual organisms.

I was referring specifically to monozygotic twins. I thought that would have been obvious from the context.

It was, and I acknowledged it.

I see no reason to disregard the implications of twins. I think it's a very relevant -and inconvenient - fact that if you set the point of "individuality" at conception, sometimes a whole other individual appears out of nowhere.

It's not though. The fact that one distinct organism can split into two does not negate the fact that one existed prior to that point.

I may spy an erroneous, though at least understandable, assumption on your part. When I speak of individuals in this context, I don't mean people, only biologically distinct organisms. I don't think a zygote is remotely comparable to an adult human, but I find it unjustifiable to deny the point at which it became biologically distinct.

 

[Storm]

"Functional" for what, though? A sperm cell is alive. It might not have the stuff to undergo mitosis, but I don't consider mitosis to be something required to be an "organism".

Functional to do anything other than fertilize an egg. I'm not saying it's not alive, I'm just saying it's not a separate organism. It's a body part, and without fertilizing an egg, it will never be anything other than a body part. When it fertilizes an egg, the zygote becomes an individual organism which at least has the capacity to one day be a person.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Aren't all those even more arbitrary than conception, though?

I mean, I can see them as superior points of reference for the political issue of abortion, but "when does the organism begin to exist" seems pretty black and white to me.

Not to me. I'm not even sure how we should define "organism" when it comes right down to it. For instance, is my gastrointestinal "flora" part of me the organism? It's genetically distinct from the rest of me, but I need it and it needs me.

 

[Penumbra]

Aren't all those even more arbitrary than conception, though?

I mean, I can see them as superior points of reference for the political issue of abortion, but "when does the organism begin to exist" seems pretty black and white to me.

I don't think it's completely black and white.

It's its own genetic organism but utterly reliant on the host that produced it at that point. Not in the sense like a child where it is physically independent but socially dependent, but rather, it's literally a cell stuck to a uterus wall getting nutrients from the host.

Any multi-cellular organism is an individual organism and a collection of organisms. We've got more bacteria cells in our body than we do human tissue cells, for example. Many of them play useful, symbiotic roles. We're not particularly concerned with their individual well-being.

I do think it's one of the cleanest and most convenient points to begin considering it individual life, but not in any complete and uncontested sense.

 

[crossfire]

In common language, an organism often refers to any living entity, including such "questionable" organisms as bacteria. If someone wants to restrict their own usage of the word organism in such a fashion that sperm and eggs are not organisms, that's fine. But who has the authority to restrict other people's usage of the word?

The fact is, sperm and eggs are either alive or dead. Thus they belong in the category of "any living entity".

Age old definition:
Spirit = breath
Soul = "a breather"

Therefore "a living soul" (individual) would be a creature that can breathe on its own. jmho.

(I would include those that can also breathe with help or medical intervention.)

 

[Penumbra]

I'm guessing you might believe the "point at which individual human life begins" to be an arbitrary choice for arguing that abortions should not take place after that "point" is reached?

I prefer more utilitarian approaches for determining when abortions cannot take place, like the point at which the organism has the physical ability to potentially suffer or sense anything.

Also I think there's a big distinction between what people should or should not do, and what people should be legally blocked from doing.

If so, I would agree with you. But do you know of any sound arguments for starting from that "point"?

The argument would be that if it's an individual human life and it's purposely killed, then this is murder and therefore illegal.

That's the basic line of reasoning for those that are against abortion even at early stages.

Most abortion debates come down to whether the fetus is considered an individual human or still part of the human mother and her body.

 

[Sunstone]

Why would it be rational to suppose that, if individual human life begins at conception, abortions should be prohibited or restricted from that time forward? Why would it not be equally rational to suppose some other point at which to restrict abortions -- such as a birth?

 

[Storm]

Not to me. I'm not even sure how we should define "organism" when it comes right down to it. For instance, is my gastrointestinal "flora" part of me the organism? It's genetically distinct from the rest of me, but I need it and it needs me.

In my view, yes. It's a symbiosis of biologically distinct organisms.

 

[Storm]

I don't think it's completely black and white.

It's its own genetic organism but utterly reliant on the host that produced it at that point. Not in the sense like a child where it is physically independent but socially dependent, but rather, it's literally a cell stuck to a uterus wall getting nutrients from the host.

Any multi-cellular organism is an individual organism and a collection of organisms. We've got more bacteria cells in our body than we do human tissue cells, for example. Many of them play useful, symbiotic roles. We're not particularly concerned with their individual well-being.

I do think it's one of the cleanest and most convenient points to begin considering it individual life, but not in any complete and uncontested sense.

All points granted (though I didn't know our own cell count was exceeded by symbiotic bacteria, which amuses me). In my book, the distinction is one which you granted in turn - "it's its own genetic organism."

Now, I'd like to take a moment to reiterate that I don't believe that's a sufficient measure of 'personhood,' and therefore it means nothing to my stance on abortion. However, I still see no reason to deny conception as the starting point of an individual human life other than political convenience.

I prefer more utilitarian approaches for determining when abortions cannot take place, like the point at which the organism has the physical ability to potentially suffer or sense anything.

Also I think there's a big distinction between what people should or should not do, and what people should be legally blocked from doing.

The argument would be that if it's an individual human life and it's purposely killed, then this is murder and therefore illegal.

That's the basic line of reasoning for those that are against abortion even at early stages.

Most abortion debates come down to whether the fetus is considered an individual human or still part of the human mother and her body.

Agreed again.

Why would it be rational to suppose that, if individual human life begins at conception, abortions should be prohibited or restricted from that time forward? Why would it not be equally rational to suppose some other point at which to restrict abortions -- such as a birth?

I don't believe it is rational. Regardless of individual biological distinction, a brainless, insensate glob of cells is not a person, and should in no regard be placed above the mother in importance.